Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Coast Guard and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Requests

S. HRG.
108899
COAST GUARD AND NATIONAL OCEANIC

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUESTS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND

COAST GUARD
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 12, 2003
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:49 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 020473 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\20473.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BILL NELSON, Florida
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel
KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Chairwoman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on March 12, 2003 ............................................................................ 1
Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 3
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4
Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 44
WITNESSES
Collins, Admiral Thomas H., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ........................... 5
Hecker, JayEtta Z., Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, General Account-
ing Office (GAO) ................................................................................................... 21
Lautenbacher, Jr., Conrad C., Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired); Undersecre-
tary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator ..... 11
APPENDIX
Barnes, Joseph L., National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association,
prepared statement .............................................................................................. 62
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, prepared statement ... 59
Response to written questions submitted to Admiral Thomas H. Collins by:
Hon. John B. Breaux ........................................................................................ 75
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings ................................................................................... 70
Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 71
Hon. Trent Lott ................................................................................................. 68
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 66
Response to written questions submitted to Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
by:
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings ................................................................................... 85
Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 88
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 77
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon, prepared statement .......... 60
U.S. Coast Guard, prepared statement .................................................................. 61
(III)
COAST GUARD AND NATIONAL OCEANIC
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUESTS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND
ON
COAST GUARD,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SR253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator SNOWE. The hearing will come to order.
Admiral Collins, Admiral Lautenbacher, Ms. Hecker, I would like
to thank you all for testifying here this afternoon on a critical hear-
ing on the Coast Guard and the NOAA fiscal year 2004 budget re-
quests. While these two agencies are located in different depart-
ments, there can be no question they both share in the vital mis-
sion of protecting, preserving, and safeguarding the marine envi-
ronment and the people who interact with and rely on that envi-
ronment. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we are dis-
cussing their fiscal year 2004 budget requests together this after-
noon.
As I said last month at our hearing on the Coast Guards historic
transition to the new Department of Homeland Security, the Coast
Guard is the cornerstone of the new department and is uniquely
positioned to perform its indispensable homeland security mission.
This homeland security role is critical, but not exhaustive as we
continue to rely on the Coast Guard for search and rescue, drug en-
forcement, interdicting illegal aliens before they reach our shores,
enforcing our fisheries laws and regulations, and protecting our en-
vironment. The challenge is to strike the proper mission balance.
That is the context in which we are compelled to consider this
budget request, because the Coast Guard today is at a crossroads.
The events of September 11th have forever changed America and
the Coast Guard, but we must not lose sight of the fact that each
of the Coast Guards missions are national security priorities we
simply cannot afford to shortchange.
Therefore, I am very pleased the Administration has requested
approximately $6.7 billion in funding for the Coast Guard, which
(1)
2
is about a 10 percent increase over last year. This follows onto the
additional increases that were included in last years budget of 18
percent over the previous year.
This budget request proposes adding an additional 2,000 per-
sonnel and implementing numerous programs to improve homeland
security, such as six new maritime safety and security teams, addi-
tional sea marshals, more port security boats, and enhancements
for achieving maritime domain awareness. I am also pleased that
the Administration is seeking an additional $26 million in search
and rescue funding to increase staffing at small boat stations and
command centers.
Nevertheless, while these increases may initially appear suffi-
cient and they certainly are welcome, I remain concerned that even
they may not be enough. We need the Coast Guard to protect our
ports and waterways, but we also need it to carry out the totality
of its more traditional missions on which we have come to rely.
Operational units are continuing to operate at a much higher
tempo than before September 11th, and the men and women of the
Coast Guard are working harder today than ever before. I am par-
ticularly concerned that the Administrations request of $500 mil-
lion for the Deepwater Project is insufficient. The original Deep-
water plan called for $500 million a year for 20 years in fiscal year
1998 dollars. For fiscal year 2004, that amount would be almost
$550 million. Therefore, the Administrations request underfunds
Deepwater by approximately 10 percent.
The fact is, we have underfunded this critical program in each
of its first 2 years. If we accept the Administrations request, we
will underfund it once again. Should this trend continue, I under-
stand the original 20-year time line would be extended to 27 years.
Given our post-September 11th circumstances, this is neither pru-
dent, nor wise. Rather, we ought to be accelerating the moderniza-
tion of our Deepwater assets as they constitute our first line of de-
fense at sea. We cannot wait an additional 20 or 30 years down the
line.
I was pleased that the Deepwater Acceleration Feasibility Study
released yesterday by the Coast Guard, as required under the
Homeland Security Act, found that the 10-year acceleration time
line is feasible. Not only that, it would also save taxpayers an esti-
mated $4 billion, or 20 percent, in acquisition costs while providing
significantly increased operational capacity and capability sooner
rather than later.
Admiral Collins, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on
these and a number of other critical issues that obviously are im-
portant to us and to your service.
Ms. Hecker, I thank you for being here today. I know that the
GAO is reorganizing to create a new homeland security team that
will cover the Coast Guard, and consequently, this will be your
final opportunity to testify before our Subcommittee. And while I
will leave it to you whether that is a cause for sorrow or celebra-
tion, let me thank you for the service that you have provided us
over the past several years. Your testimony and recommendations
have been extremely helpful to us as we perform our oversight role.
Admiral Lautenbacher, I want to welcome you today, as well,
and to thank you for your leadership at the helm of NOAA. I do
3
not have to tell you that NOAA is a broad-ranging agency on which

the people in my home state rely each and every day. In myriad
and essential ways, your agency has a direct impact on their lives.
We count on NOAA for reliable weather predictions to scientifically
based fisheries management to coastal zone management to better
understanding global climate change. Of course, these needs are
not unique to Maine. More than half of our countrys population
lives on the 10 percent of our land designated as a coastal zone.
Our coastal population grows every year, placing increased strains
in coastal sources and our marine ecosystem. Our nation is facing
unprecedented challenges in managing these resources, and we
look to NOAA to take the lead.
On the homeland security front, I know that NOAA is hard at
work ensuring its navigation, charting, and weather predictions
help keep our ports secure and ready to facilitate any potential
emergency response effort.
In New England, we continue to be consumed by the groundfish
crisis in which litigation and uncertain scientific data threaten to
potentially and permanently change our coastal communities and
their way of life. Our fisheries management is largely affected by
a complicated stock assessment process that is still fraught with
uncertainty, and it demands improvement.
Fisherman and managers alike need flexibility and an adaptive
system that is responsive enough to allow for short-term adjust-
ments, yet is stable enough to allow for long-term predictability
and planning based on sound science. As I have said, it is impera-
tive that science serve as the backbone of all our decisions. Cooper-
ative research is one area in which I believe we can bring scientists
and fisherman together to produce the science we need to better
understand and manage our fisheries resources. I cannot empha-
size enough the importance of cooperative research.
I also advocate moving forward towards a global ocean observing
system that will provide us with the critical environment data to
improve fisheries modeling and management, coastal planning, and
harmful algal blooms management and mitigation. The Gulf of
Maine Ocean Observing System offers an outstanding example of
a way to reach our goals.
The bottom line is, now more than ever, circumstances require
NOAA to be a leader in the science-based management and ade-
quate budgets will be a key component in achieving that success.
I recognize your budget only shows a modest growth consistent
with inflation, but in this time of tight budgets I believe we need
to ensure this funding is directed where it is most needed.
So, again, Admiral, thank you for being here. Thank you, Admi-
ral Collins and Ms. Hecker, for offering your insights this after-
noon.
Senator Inouye?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish I could be
here all afternoon, but circumstances require my presence else-
where.
4
However, I want the record to show that since Hawaii is an insu-

lar state, we look upon the Coast Guard as special citizens. Hardly
a day goes by that you do not see something on the front page
where the Coast Guard is rescuing somebody on the high seas.
And Madam Chair, you may not realize this, but on a per-capita
basis, Coast Guards men and women contribute more to United
Way than the citizens of Hawaii. That is how good of citizens they
are.
And there is a saying in Hawaii, Whatever the Coast Guard
wants, the Coast Guard gets.
[Laughter.]
Senator INOUYE. And so I will vote blindly with you, Madam
Chair.
[Laughter.]
Senator INOUYE. That is the only way to go.
I need not emphasize to Admiral Lautenbacher that NOAA is
very important to us. Our coral beds are important to us. Our fish-
eries are important to us. And we count upon you to make certain
that generations to come will be able to enjoy them.
So you have got my vote. If the Chair says you do not have
enough, you do not have enough, and I am on the appropriating
committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator SNOWE. You see? We make a great team. You see what
I mean?
[Laughter.]
Senator INOUYE. So, if I may, may I request that my full state-
ment be submitted for the record?
Senator SNOWE. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Admiral Collins and Admiral Lautenbacher, thank you for joining us today. Ha-
waii is an island state that depends heavily upon the sea for shipping goods, food,
and recreation. This means we rely upon the services your agencies provide, from
port security to the protection of natural resources. I am therefore very interested
in ensuring both the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA) are adequately funded to carry out their mis-
sions.
Of particular concern to me, is how the Coast Guards traditional missions will
fair under the new Department of Homeland Security. Over the past year and a
half, we have seen increased funding for these traditional missions, yet they are still
funded at less than pre-9/11 levels. It was evident after 9/11 that the Coast Guard
was stretched thin, but even with an increase in funding, the addition of new mis-
sions and mandates has placed an even greater strain on its resources. The Coast
Guards deployment overseas to support Operation Enduring Freedom, the Global
War on Terrorism, and Combatant Commander requirements that may support
other military contingencies will only increase the pressure. Even without the No-
vember 2002 Coast Guard internal communication to cut back on non-homeland se-
curity missions in order to further compensate for the increased demands of the
Coast Guards Maritime Homeland Security Mission, one can see from the agencys
ever-broadening responsibilities that the Coast Guard would benefit greatly from
the support of additional funding.
I hope your testimony regarding the Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 budget request
for the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA will address how the growing needs for fish-
eries enforcement, deployment of weather buoys, response to hazardous material
spills, and the other programs that require close collaboration between your agen-
cies will be met.
5
Senator SNOWE. I thank you, Senator Inouye, for your statement.

We appreciate it.
Admiral Collins?
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS,
COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD
Admiral COLLINS. Madam Chair, the good Senator from Hawaii,
thank you so much. It is great being with you this afternoon. And
I would like to thank the subcommittee for enduring support of the
Coast Guard and all its missions.
I am sure you would be interested to know that we transferred
to the new Department of Homeland Security. We did it smoothly
and successfully on 1 March of this year. And as we speak, we are
very busily and aggressively engaged in drafting the rules and the
processes and procedures to implement the Maritime Transpor-
tation and Security Act that the President signed last fall.
And due, in large measure, to the support of this Committee in
fiscal year 2002 and 2003, I am very pleased to report the Coast
Guard is growing in capacity and capability. And this should come
as welcome news to anyone with interest in our ability to conduct
our wide range of missions.
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues this trend of a more capa-
ble Coast Guard thanks to the incredibly strong support of Presi-
dent Bush and Secretary Ridge. If we receive the appropriation re-
quested in the Presidents budget, by the end of fiscal year 2004
we will have grown by over 4,100 personnel and increased our
overall budget by over $1.6 billion, an increase of more than 30
percent of the fiscal year 2002. The budget requests a total, as you
have noted, Madam Chairman, of $6.7 billion, which reflects long-
term commitments to both our homeland security missions and our
non-homeland security missions. This includes a $455 million in-
crement for operating expenses and $797 million for capital acqui-
sitions.
And while this increase is substantial, it is also absolutely essen-
tial to meet mission demands we are facing now and likely to face
in the foreseeable future. It is essential if we are to build our
homeland security capability. It is essential if we are to avoid tech-
nical obsolescence of our capital plan. It is essential if we are to
maintain the operation excellence across the full range of our mis-
sions that you expect. Our operational excellence can be assured by
careful attention to the readiness of our forces, superb stewardship
of our resources, and most importantly, the development and well-
being of our men and women.
We have an enormous challenge ahead of us with respect to sus-
taining operational excellence, and I assure you that we are up to
the task. And as the lead Federal agency for maritime homeland
security, the Coast Guard is addressing the challenges of enhanc-
ing maritime security. Our efforts are guided by our maritime
homeland security strategy, and our activities within our ports and
waterways align with this strategy, and so does our budget. There
is $142 million in a 1200FTP growth increment in our operating
expense request to support homeland security mission buildup.
Overall, 44 percent of our budget is devoted to homeland security
missions, as defined by the Homeland Security Act.
6
I began my testimony by saying that operational excellence is

critical to maintaining a balance of our missions, and I mean the
full range of our missionssecurity, safety, environmental security,
and interoperable missions with the Department of Defense. We
must balance the rigors of homeland security with the demands of
other crucial missions. We can, we are, and we will continue to do
so, with your support.
For example, our request includes continued focus on search and
rescue mission readiness with an increase of $26 million and 529
personnel. That translates into over 950 new people being added to
this mission area since 2001. And a thousand-person increase in
our Selected Reserve will help manage surge requirements as they
occur.
To continue to manage and balance this carefully, we must in-
crease our capacity and capability. We are using our fleet and air-
craft to the maximum to safeguard our nation, but these assets are
getting old and more tired each year. Their readiness condition is
eroding before our eyes.
Just last week, for example, the Cutter SITKINAK was forced to
return to drydock for the second time in 2 weeks to repair holes
in her hull caused by corrosion. I have brought with me this morn-
ing a graphic example of that type of corrosion. This is from a sis-
ter vessel, the OCRACOKE, that has experienced similar types of
hull corrosion. That is what we are facing in our 110-foot patrol
fleet.
As you can see, the watertight integrity
Senator SNOWE. What is the age of this
Admiral COLLINS. Approaching 15 years.
Senator SNOWE. Fifteen years?
Admiral COLLINS. Fifteen years. And they were designed for a
hull service life of 15 years. That was the designed service life of
those patrol boats.
But maintenance costs there in the Coast Guard Yardthe
Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, are fixing thatbut that is becom-
ing typical of that patrol boat fleet. We are running our boats hard.
We are getting good performance out of them, but we are con-
suming them with increased OP tempo, as you have alluded to,
Madam Chairman.
Another graphic example is the STORIS. You may recall that
more than 2 years ago, the 60-year-old cutter STORIS was on a
fisheries patrol in the Bering Sea when it spotted an illegal incur-
sion over the maritime boundary line and loaded a boarding team
and a boat crew into this motor surf boat. The weather was typical
for the Bering Sea, lousy and rough. They got the boat lowered, but
before they could unhook, a passing swell violently lifted and
dropped the boat, shocking the system and breaking off the aft
davit, which was original issue equipment on the old ship. Metallic
debris rained down on the boat crew. And meanwhile, the boat,
still attached to the forward fall, was buffeted by other waves and
capsized, dumping nine of the crew into the Bering Sea, most of
them wearing only Mustang suits, which are not designed to pro-
vide extensive protection from immersion in such cold weather.
Had it not been for the quick response, professional response, of
the ships personnel, we possibly could have lost several crewman
7
here. And thankfully, they all survived. After repairs, the cutter
STORIS is still faithfully on patrol, a 60-year-old vessel.
I could tell you many more stories like this if we had time, but
let me summarize by saying that we have an incredible amount of
work ahead of us to restore the readiness of our fleet. We will do
it, in part, through application of new and developing technologies
such as that being produced by the Integrated Deepwater System
and Rescue 21. It is absolutely critical that we continue to receive
the requested level of funding for these programs to ensure that
our aging fleet is modernized and recapitalized and to provide the
kind of network-centric capability that will help us mitigate the
risk of a very porous maritime border.
Building our capabilities in homeland security requires special
emphasis in two areas, improving maritime domain awareness and
increasing our maritime presence. The 2004 budget helps us in
both regards.
And I should stress that building out our homeland security
through multi-mission platforms also have secondary and tertiary
benefits to other missions. We are not building dedicated homeland
security resources; we are building multi-mission platforms that
can surge to our missions across the board.
The demands continue to grow on our organization. We are com-
mitted to operational excellence. Operational excellence depends
upon good teamwork and partnerships within the Department of
Homeland Security, but it also depends on resources. It depends on
capability and capacity to apply them to the mission at hand.
That is where we are. I think that 2004 marks a critical juncture
for us so that we continue a multi-year effort to deliver the capac-
ity and capability that the Nation needs of its United States Coast
Guard.
I look forward to working with Madam Chairman to these ends.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Collins follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS, COMMANDANT,
U.S. COAST GUARD
Introduction
Good morning, Madame Chairman and distinguished Members of the Sub-
committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guards
Fiscal Year 2004 budget request and its impact on the essential daily services we
provide the American public.
I am pleased to begin by saying that, as a result of support from the President,
Secretary Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guards Fis-
cal Year 2004 budget contains significant increases to address all of our essential
mission needs. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime compo-
nent of Homeland Security and that, alongside Search and Rescue, is our top pri-
ority. In Fiscal Year 2004, we will continue to build upon the resource capabilities
provided in last years supplemental and the Fiscal Year 2003 budget to provide lay-
ered maritime security operations, driven by performance and risk-based analysis.
The Coast Guard will continue to make the ports less vulnerable to terrorists while
still facilitating the use of the Marine Transportation System for legitimate pur-
poses.
The President has clearly indicated that protecting the American homeland is our
number one priority and the Coast Guard has a critical role in that effort. The
Presidents National Strategy for Homeland Security (dated 16 July 2002) stated:
The Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 will continue to support the recapitalization
of the U.S. Coast Guards aging fleet, as well as targeted improvements in the
areas of maritime domain awareness and command and control systems . . .
8
To that end, the Coast Guards Fiscal Year 2004 budget proposes budget authority
of $6.77 billion dollars and continues our effort to establish a new level of maritime
safety and security. The Coast Guards goal is to create sufficient capability to im-
plement the maritime component of the Presidents National Strategy for Homeland
Security while sustaining all our traditional missions in the way the American pub-
lic expects and needs.
Transformation
To implement the Presidents strategy, the Coast Guard must conduct a broad
transformation of how we deliver services so that we can maintain the highest
standards of operational excellence. Over the past few years, the Coast Guard has
endeavored to gradually transform itself to meet future maritime threats but since
September 11, 2001, that effort has become more urgent. The Presidents National
Security Strategy requires transformation in all the military services, because the
nation is facing new threats from an elusive and determined enemy. A convergence
of three significant factors has clearly illustrated the need for a transformed U.S.
Coast Guard:
The need to increase Maritime Homeland Security capability.
The need to sustain our performance across all Coast Guard missions; and
The need to quickly implement the comprehensive requirements of the Mari-
time Transportation Security Act of 2002.
Immediately after the terrorist attacks on our nation, the Coast Guard estab-
lished new port security zones, placed Sea Marshals on inbound merchant ships,
conducted additional patrols off the coasts, established Maritime Safety and Secu-
rity Teams to protect major ports and implemented new procedures to monitor ves-
sel and crew movements within ports and coastal approaches. These increased re-
sponsibilities stretched already thin resources nearly to the breaking point and
made it extremely difficult to continue serving other missions. To fill in the gaps,
we activated nearly a third of our entire Selected Reserve force, and have quickly
and effectively deployed the resources requested by the Administration and provided
by Congress.
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget provides the resources to continue the broad trans-
formation that is necessary for the Coast Guard to provide the strength and security
our nation requires. This transformation will not change the Coast Guards essential
character since it will remain a maritime, multi-mission, military service. Instead,
the transformation will enable the Coast Guard to maintain operational excellence
while conducting increased homeland security operations and sustaining traditional
missions. To fulfill its responsibility to the American public, the Coast Guard is at-
tempting to accomplish three primary objectives in Fiscal Year 2004:
Recapitalize legacy assets and infrastructure.
Increase Maritime Homeland Security Capabilities; and
Sustain non-Homeland Security missions.
Recapitalizing the Coast Guard
To truly transform the Coast Guard, aging assets and infrastructure must be re-
capitalized. In addition to Rescue 21 (formerly known as National Distress and Re-
sponse System Modernization Project or NDRSMP), which is on schedule for comple-
tion in Fiscal Year 2006, the Coast Guards Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) will
meet Americas future maritime needs. Since September 11th, the Coast Guard is
reassessing the scale and timing of the flexible Deepwater project. Based on the or-
ganizations current capacity levels and the required capabilities immediately need-
ed for Homeland Security and the other missions the American public expects, the
continued funding of Deepwater is imperative and makes both programmatic and
business sense. The Coast Guard is requesting $500 million for the IDS.
Several programmatic considerations reveal why the IDS is so essential for the
safety and security of the American public:
Homeland Security necessitates pushing Americas maritime borders outward,
away from ports and waterways so layered, maritime security operations can
be implemented. Deepwater provides this capability.
Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)knowledge of all activities and elements
in the maritime domainis critical to maritime security. IDS will improve cur-
rent MDA by providing more capable sensors to collect vital information. Deep-
water provides this capability.
9
A network-centric system of Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) is required for effective
accomplishment of all Coast Guard missions. Deepwater provides this capability.
Interdiction of illegal drugs and migrants and protection of living marine re-
sources are important elements of Homeland Security and require capable
Deepwater assets. Deepwater provides this capability.
The primary role of the Integrated Deepwater System in the Coast Guard Home-
land Security mission is to fortify maritime security. The Deepwater Program will
ensure the Coast Guard can continue to fulfill its mission of safeguarding the sov-
ereignty, security, and safety of our homeland waters. The IDS concept pushes our
borders out, through an effective use of MDA combined with layered assets through-
out ports, waterways, coastal regions and far offshore to surveil, detect, classify,
identify and prosecute those who would bring harm to our nation and our economi-
cally-critical natural resources. Deepwater assets will be able to counter threats
throughout the maritime domain to thwart catastrophes to vulnerable infrastructure
(oil rigs, deepwater channels, shipping) and keep commerce, especially military ma-
teriel load-out, safe in the near shore zones at harbor entrances and between ports.
New assets include the conversion of five 110 patrol boats to more capable 123 pa-
trol craft, seven Short Range Prosecutor small boats, funding for the first National
Security Cutter (to be delivered in FY 2006), the continued development of an orga-
nization-wide C4ISR network including a Common Operating Picture (COP), com-
mand and control system at four shore-based command centers and the establish-
ment of an integrated logistics system.
From a business perspective, the flexible IDS framework was designed to adapt
to the kinds of changes the Coast Guard has experienced since the notional funding
baseline was established in 1998 and particularly since September 11, 2001. The
IDS acquisition will replace or modernize obsolete and maintenance intensive assets
that are not capable of meeting the current mission demand. The IDS will provide
the required capabilities the Coast Guard needs to perform an enhanced level of
maritime security operations sustain growing traditional missions and respond to
any future crises, man-made or otherwise, that threaten America.
Rescue 21 is also a transformational project as it will dramatically improve the
Coast Guards command and control communications network in the inland and
coastal zone areas for SAR and all other Coast Guard missions. The improved Res-
cue 21 system will meet safety requirements for growing maritime traffic, as well
as International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) treaty require-
ments. It will also be a critical component of our homeland security operations as
it facilitates more effective monitoring and control of coastal assets.
Homeland Security Capabilities
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for Maritime Homeland Security. As
such, the Coast Guards mission, in conjunction with joint and interagency forces,
is to protect the U.S. Maritime Domain and the U.S. Marine Transportation System
and deny their use and exploitation by terrorists as a means for attacks on U.S.
territory, population and critical infrastructure. The Coast Guard will prepare for,
and in the event of an attack, conduct emergency response operations. When di-
rected, the Coast Guard, as the supported or supporting commander, will conduct
military homeland defense operations in our traditional role as one of the five
Armed Services.
This budget submission is aligned with the Strategic Goals and Critical Mission
Areas in the Presidents National Strategy for Homeland Security. The Coast Guard
has developed a Strategy that implements the maritime component of the Presi-
dents plan and the FY 2004 budget continues to support those goals. It addresses
both event-driven and prevention-based operations through the following Strategic
Objectives:
Prevent terrorist attacks within, and terrorist exploitation of, the U.S. Maritime
Domain.
Reduce Americas vulnerability to terrorism within the U.S. Maritime Domain.
Protect U.S. population centers, critical infrastructure, maritime borders, ports,
coastal approaches and boundaries and seams among them.
Protect the U.S. Marine Transportation System while preserving the freedom
of maritime domain for legitimate pursuits.
Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur within the U.S.
Maritime Domain as either the Lead Federal Agency or a supporting agency.
10
The threats to the security of the United States extend beyond overt terrorism.
Countering illegal drug and contraband smuggling, preventing illegal immigration
via maritime routes, preserving living marine resources from foreign encroachment,
preventing environmental damage and responding to spills of oil and hazardous sub-
stances are all critical elements of national and economic security. Every Homeland
Security dollar directed to the Coast Guard will contribute to a careful balance be-
tween our safety and security missions, both of which must be properly resourced for
effective mission accomplishment.
Maritime Domain Awareness is the catalyst for effective Maritime Homeland Se-
curity and the Fiscal Year 2004 budget provides the resources to enhance the Coast
Guards ability to receive, fuse, disseminate and transmit intelligence data and le-
verage our recent inclusion in the National Intelligence Community. It includes new
personnel, hardware and software to support the underlying information architec-
ture for MDA, funds leased satellite channels and other connectivity solutions for
our entire cutter fleet and establishes a prototype Joint Harbor Operations Center
(JHOC) in Hampton Roads, VA, to provide surveillance as well as command and
control capability for the critical infrastructure in this area.
The Fiscal Year 2004 request also provides the capability and capacity to conduct
layered maritime security operations. Six new, deployable Maritime Safety and Se-
curity Teams (MSST), for a total of 12 teams, and over 50 Sea Marshals will be
added throughout the country to protect our most critical ports. To increase Coast
Guard presence in our ports and waterways, we are requesting 43 fully crewed and
outfitted Port Security Response Boats, nine 87 Coastal Patrol Boats and the com-
mencement of the Response Boat Medium acquisition which will replace our aging
fleet of 41 utility boats. We are also standing-up Stations Boston and Washington
DC to increase security and safety in these critical ports where more resources were
needed. We are establishing two new Port Security Units, for a total of eight, to sup-
port domestic and overseas operational planning.
Sustaining Traditional Missions
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget restores the Coast Guards multi-mission focus to
near pre-September 11, 2001 levels. We will utilize performance and risk-based
analysis to strike a careful balance between our safety and security missions as we
attend to our new normalcy. This delicate balance is critical to protecting Amer-
icas economic and national security by preventing illegal activity on our maritime
borders. It will also enable the Coast Guard to maintain its surge capability, which
was evident before and after September 11, 2001. One of the Coast Guards greatest
attributes is our innate flexibility to immediately shift mission focus to meet Amer-
icas greatest threat while maintaining other mission areas for the American public.
While its primary focus is Search and Rescue (SAR), the Rescue 21 project will
transform the Coast Guards command and control capabilities for all mission areas.
Coupling this major acquisition with a staffing increase of nearly 400 new personnel
at our SAR stations and Command Centers will ensure Coast Guard shore-side com-
mand and control networks and response units are properly equipped and staffed
for multi-mission effectiveness. We are also requesting funds for the Great Lakes
Icebreaker to ensure delivery in Fiscal Year 2006. This ship will perform aids to
navigation functions as well as break ice to keep this critical commerce route open
year-round.
This budget also requests funding to fully train, support, and sustain the Coast
Guards Selected Reserve Force. The Reserve is significantly more than an aug-
mentation force. It is an integral part of Team Coast Guard and provides daily sup-
port of all Coast Guard missions. Todays Coast Guard depends on Reserve per-
sonnel for day-to-day activities in addition to the qualified military surge capacity
a trained Reserve Force provides. The Coast Guard Reserve fills critical national se-
curity and national defense roles in both Homeland Security and direct support of
Department of Defense Combatant Commanders. The Coast Guard Reserve provides
the nations only deployable port security capability and a cost-effective surge capac-
ity for Coast Guard operations including quick response to natural or man-made dis-
asters such as floods, hurricane relief, major pollution cleanup efforts, and rapid re-
sponse to major catastrophes.
The Coast Guard started an incremental reserve growth from 8,000 to 9,000 in
Fiscal Year 2003 and now 10,000 in Fiscal Year 2004. A robust and well-trained Re-
serve force of 10,000 SELRES members is an integral part of the Coast Guards plan
to provide critical infrastructure protection, coastal and port security, and defense
readiness. Funding is essential to properly maintain readiness, alignment with DoD
counterparts and to provide critical capabilities for DoD Combatant Commanders.
11
Conclusion
There are challenges facing the Coast Guard: the obsolescence of our aging asset
fleet; the complexity of recruiting, retaining, and training the talented workforce
necessary to execute our missions; and moving into the new Department of Home-
land Security.
The Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 budget provides immediate capability for our
Homeland Security responsibilities and continues to build upon past efforts to re-
store service readiness and shape the Coast Guards future. It also demonstrates
strong support for both the Deepwater project and Rescue 21. This budget will en-
able the Coast Guard to maintain operational excellence across all mission areas to
meet the Americas future maritime safety and security needs.
I close with a quote from the National Strategy for Homeland Security which crys-
tallizes the need for a transformed, multi-mission capable Coast Guard:
The United States asks much of its U.S. Coast Guard and we will ensure the
service has the resources needed to accomplish its multiple missions.
I have asked every member of the Coast Guard to continue to focus intently and
act boldly on the three elements of my organizational direction: improving Readi-
ness, practicing good Stewardship of the public trust and enhancing the growth, de-
velopment and well being of our People. With this diligence in executing our multi-
year resource plan, we will fulfill our operational commitment to America and main-
tain our high standards of excellence.
Semper Paratus.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to an-
swer any questions you may have.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Admiral Collins.

Admiral Lautenbacher?
STATEMENT OF CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., VICE

ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED); UNDERSECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND NOAA
ADMINISTRATOR
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the staff, it is a great pleasure to be
here. Thank you for this opportunity. I, indeed, wanted to echo
what Admiral Collins has said about the support and cooperation
we have had working with the Committee, and we appreciate that
support.
It is also a great pleasure to be here with Admiral Collins be-
cause there is a great deal of synergy and cooperation in the part-
nership between the Coast Guard and NOAA in terms of managing
resources and in our EEZ, coastal-zone areas, fisheries, restoration,
hazard mitigation, and worrying about navigation in that part of
the world.
I also have a fleet which is about as old as his, too. I would say
that I can
[Laughter.]
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I did not bring any steel in, but we
have some similar examples.
[Laughter.]
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The opportunity that I have here today
is to talk about our budget, so I would like to indicate, first of all,
that NOAA is a very small agency with a huge impact. It is an es-
sential part of the economic and homeland security of this nation.
It is not appreciated completely by all of the American public, nor
publicized to the degree it should be, but it is vital. Our statistics
show that it adds up toabout $2.7 trillion of GDP is touched
12
every day by the decisions and the types of material and services
and products that NOAA puts out on a daily basis.
The budget request this year is 3.3 billion. It is roughly a little
bit higher than last years $3.1 billion. It is 6 percent above the
Presidents request from last year, so it represents an indication by
the Administration that this is a very important area to the nation.
It is roughly 4 percent above our enacted request in the bill that
was enacted several weeks ago by the Senate, so we are roughly
in the same ballpark.
People are our top resource, and I want to spend just a couple
of minutes talking about the value of a scientific core that spreads
the breadth of every discipline in ocean and atmospheric science
put together in one place. That synergy of the people brought to-
gether from various parts of our country and various parts of these
scientific disciplines is extremely important. I am asking for sup-
port this year for our ATBs, our adjustments to base, which essen-
tially fund our people. It is important that we keep this resource
that we have for our foundation in producing science. And I fully
support everything Madam Chair said in her opening statement re-
garding the science base that is necessary to provide decision-
making for our policymakers.
So people are my top resource, and I ask for your support for the
people that we have. And I might say that, in prudence, in good
management, I am not asking for any more people this year. We
have kept our level of personnel constant. So where we have need-
ed more people, we have found offsets. So the number of people we
are asking for is basically constant from last year, and I am asking
for the money to support them in pay raises and cost-of-living ad-
justments.
Our budget was created in six themes, and I think themes are
more important than the various lines that we have inside NOAA,
because they support the missions that we need to support the
country. And so the themes, I will touch briefly on theminfra-
structure, maintenance, safety, and human capital, the guts of the
organization where we have our expertise.
People are the largest part of that, and there is roughly a $50
million increase in there which helps to defray the cost-of-living
and pay-raise increases which are required to keep us going at the
same level as previous.
Homeland security is the next theme, and homeland security is
very important to us. We have two initiatives in there we think are
worthy of note. One is the support of a scaled upgrade to our cur-
rent NOAA Weather Radio System to an All Hazards Warning Net-
work supported by the Department of Homeland Security and obvi-
ously by OMB and the Administration. NOAA Weather Radio is
the only easily, rapidly available, automatically alarmed system for
roughly 90 percent of the American public, who can have this radio
from Radio Shack, Midland Radio, whereveryou know, I do not
want to advertise particular brand names, but these can be bought
very cheaply. It is an alarm system.
What we are offering is a $5 million increment that will take a
system which is designed for tornados and thunderstorms and hur-
ricane and severe weather events and turn it into an automated
system for all hazards. So within 2 minutes, an emergency man-
13
ager in any county in the country, or any area, would be able to

automatically put in public-service message through this trans-
mission system, and it would be out in less than 2 minutes. Right
now, it takes us over 7 minutes to do that kind of operation manu-
ally. We believe this is a great increase in public safety and are ex-
cited about the possibility of enacting this increment.
Now, the other piece is a small piece that is added to our own
security. NOAAs functions for the country are vital. We are look-
ing to ensure that our operation can be maintained no matter what
goes on, in terms of threats to our country. So there is a small in-
crease of about $2 million for security in our weather forecast of-
fices all around the nation, which, by the way, are very close to air-
ports and are attached to the FAA system.
In climate change, research, observations, and services, that is a
major crosscutting theme in NOAA. We are asking for an incre-
ment of $17 million to improve our ability to provide critical deci-
sionmaking information to both Congress and our Administration
in an area that is very important. We have engaged this last year,
I think, in some very significant improvements in the way that sys-
tem in climate change research is managed. We are grateful for the
support for the increment that we had last year. This new incre-
ment will go into the same sorts of uncertainties in determining
the answers to some questions that are very important that come
from an ocean observing system which you supported, work on car-
bon cycle, work on water cycle, aerosols in the atmosphere, com-
puting capabilities to work on models we do not have today that
would give us much more accurate results on what decisions could
be made in future climate policies. That is an important piece of
the Administrations $185 million climate change research initia-
tive. It cuts across all agencies. I might add that NOAA is the lead
agency in that coalition or partnership of Federal agencies that are
working together across the entire government to produce a coher-
ent climate change program.
In ecosystem forecasting and management, I think when we talk
about managing our living marine sources we are working on going
toward an ecosystem foundation for all of the types of research and
regulation that comes out of NOAA. It will be much better than
what we are involved in now with single-species management, sin-
gle-species plans, and one particular challenge after another. We
have, in that part, a modestI admit, it is a modest increase, but
it is an increase of $27 million or so that go into the types of areas
we are interested in, in terms of improving our fisheries manage-
ment.
The largest portion in that section, I might add, is for Sea Grant.
I am proud to say that the Administration has Sea Grant within
the NOAA budget this year and that we are delighted that it is
back with us and we appreciate the support of the Senate and the
House in that regard, and we look forward to working again with
Sea Grant as part of our portfolio of research and outreach edu-
cation tools.
Energy and commerce has a small increase in it, but it is impor-
tant because of our port system where we provide the types of
timely information that allows our shipping to come in and out of
major ports more rapidly and more safelytides, winds, currents,
14
forecasts, improved models for our pilots and people who manage
our port system. We are also looking to improve modernization of
the National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Network,
which will allow better management of energy resources, fuel for
our power plants. If we can cut back on the uncertainty of tempera-
ture forecasts, we can improve the allocation of fuel and the use of
the generating resources inside our power plants across the coun-
try. That is an important improvement.
Environmental monitoring and prediction, that systemthat in-
cludes our satellite systems. I want to make a special plea for the
GOES and the NPOESS, the polar orbiting and the geostationary
satellites. These are the eyes of our nation. Without these satellite
systems being replaced and serviced and data taken on a timely
basis, this country would have a hugely difficult time in agri-
culture, maritime transportation, tourism, all of the things that
rely on those eyes of the world to tell us about weather and ex-
treme events and environmental management as we go into using
it for ecosystem management, living marine resources, as well.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize again that people are the
most important priority that we have. I would like to certainly
work with the Committee and the staff in articulating some of our
needs and answering any questions that you may have.
And once again, thank you very much for your support and the
opportunity to appear today.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Lautenbacher follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., VICE ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY
(RETIRED); UNDERSECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND
NOAA ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity
to testify on the Presidents FY 2004 Budget Request for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA activities and operations contribute to the Nations economic and environ-
mental health. This budget request allows us to provide essential support to the pro-
grams that enhance our scientific understanding of the oceans and atmosphere, in
order to help sustain Americas environmental health and economic vitality. Please
note that some increase amounts listed in this testimony may change as a result
of the FY 2003 appropriation. Budget numbers in the testimony reflect the program
changes from the FY 2003 Presidents Budget.
NOAA is at the forefront of many of this Nations most critical issues from weath-
er forecasting to fisheries management, from safe navigation to coastal services and
from environmental observations through NOAAs satellites to climate research and
ocean exploration.
The Administration requests $3.325 billion for these people, products and services
for Fiscal Year 2004. This represents a very modest total increase of $190.0 million,
only about 6 percent more than the FY03 request. It targets essentials, such as
$238.5 million in program changes and $52.0 million in adjustments to base (ATBs),
or mandatory cost increases, which are mostly inflationary costs related to salaries
for NOAA employees.
This budget request focuses on NOAAs core responsibilities: severe weather pre-
diction; long-term climate and environmental trends; sustaining healthy marine
habitats, robust ecosystems and coastal environments; and managing safety and en-
vironmental compliance issues impacting our people. People are NOAAs top re-
source, the heart and soul of NOAA operations. It is the people who work for NOAA
who allow us to remain a premier oceanic and atmospheric science, service & stew-
ardship agency.
The Fiscal Year 2004 NOAA budget request is organized slightly differently than
the NOAA budget requests that have been presented to Capitol Hill in past years.
I believe that looking at the NOAA organization and programs through a thematic
matrix yields a more complete view of the interrelationship of NOAA programs and
15
project teams that cut across the traditional NOAA product and service lines. Orga-
nizing the budget in this manner demonstrates NOAAs commitment to addressing
critical environmental issues in a multi-disciplinary manner. The six themes in-
cluded in the Fiscal Year 2004 NOAA budget are: Infrastructure, Maintenance,
Safety & Human Capital; Homeland Security; Climate Change, Research, Observa-
tions & Services; Ecosystem Forecasting & Management; Energy & Commerce; and
Environmental Monitoring & Prediction. I would like to briefly address what is cov-
ered under each theme.
Infrastructure, Maintenance, Safety & Human Capital ($248.4M, $79.5M in-
crease)
The full $52.0 million requested for adjustments to base (ATBs) appears in this
theme. This is the most basic, fundamentally important, investment in the infra-
structure category. It is the funding necessary to support NOAAs people, so they
can continue to improve service and product delivery to carry out NOAAs mission.
This figure includes the annualization of the 4.1 percent pay raise in FY 2003, the
2 percent pay raise requested in FY 2004, and the funds necessary to increase the
NOAA Corps and improve ship crew training.
The funds requested in this category will also assist NOAA in beginning to imple-
ment agency-wide management improvements. This includes addressing remedi-
ation projects to improve environmental safety and compliance at NOAA facilities,
and participating in the e-gov initiatives that make NOAA more accessible to the
American public. Funding is also requested for operation and maintenance of the
NOAA Ship FAIRWEATHER, weather forecast office and housing construction in
Alaska and the Pacific Region, the $10.4 million NOAA share in the cost of the Cen-
ter for Weather and Climate Prediction construction and the NOAA Satellite Oper-
ations Facility in Suitland, Maryland.
This theme also includes investment in health and safety through improvements
and upgrades in NOAAs facilities and equipment, such as the NOAA P3 hurri-
cane hunter aircraft. An investment of $1.7 million this year is requested to up-
grade the navigational system of this advanced atmospheric and environmental
platform used for hurricane research.
Among all the items included in this theme, the most important component of
NOAA activities is the people who generate our products and services. Retaining
and appropriately compensating the people at NOAA who are working to help us
reach our goal of improving services delivery is crucial to attaining this goal. As you
are aware, last year NOAA underwent an Agency-wide realignment to help move
NOAA into a more efficient mode of operations. The Program Review Team (PRT)
posed 3 questions to the NOAA staff, the answers to which formed the core of the
PRT report and recommendations:
Is NOAAs organization aligned with its current missions, now and for the fu-
ture?
Are NOAAs resources properly aligned with requirements?
Is NOAA doing things as efficiently as possible?
The goals of the PRT exercise were to improve NOAA business practices, includ-
ing grant management and facilities planning, and to move towards becoming a cit-
izen-centered, results-oriented, market based organization. This effort has resulted
in several management improvements just in the last year, including the creation
of the Planning, Programming and Integration (PPI) office, and establishing official
matrix management teams for the Coral Reef, Habitat Restoration, Ocean Explo-
ration and Climate programs. NOAA is also moving towards integrating program
budgeting and performance, separating fisheries science and regulation, and
strengthening NOAA administrative services by implementing Activity Based Cost-
ing (ABC), and Business Management Fund Development.
Homeland Security and Related Programs ($65.1M, $7.7M increase)
The investments in this area focus on existing NOAA products and science which
can be utilized for Homeland Security. Priorities are on the first responders, which
enable NOAA technology to be accessed and used by local, state, and federal emer-
gency managers. The funding provided under this theme provides critical infrastruc-
ture and enhanced security to current NOAA facilities.
For first responders, NOAA is requesting $5.5 million to support a scaled upgrade
of the current NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) network to an All Hazards Warning
Network for civil emergency messages. The existing NWR network provides the
most robust government-owned dissemination infrastructure capable of meeting the
all-hazard dissemination requirements. This investment will decrease the time to
disseminate civil emergency messages from an average of 7 minutes to 2 minutes.
16
This request is a one-time cost. The funds will allow NOAA to modify existing Ad-
vance Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) communications software to
allow emergency managers to directly transmit a civil emergency message over se-
cure lines. This modification will have immediate, nationwide impact because NWR
is located in every state, linked to the Emergency Broadcast System, and NOAA
weather radio receivers are widely available in the commercial market.
The security and safety of NOAA facilities is an equally important element of this
budget theme. $2.2 million is requested in the FY 2004 budget for emergency pre-
paredness and safety to improve the overall physical security at National Weather
Service (NWS) facilities to preclude unauthorized individuals from entering and
tampering with NOAA property. This investment will provide for alarm or moni-
toring systems at 92 weather forecast offices and national centers, as well as elec-
tronic or cipher door locks at 149 weather forecast offices or national centers. These
small improvements will go a long way towards improving the safety and security
of the physical workplaces of NOAA employees across the country.
Climate Change, Research, Observations & Services ($295.5M, $16.9M in-
crease)
NOAA is requesting a $16.9 million increase for our climate research activities,
which is just a portion of the government-wide $185 million Climate Change Re-
search Initiative (CCRI). This funding will allow NOAA to complete 29 stations out
of a network of 36 atmospheric vertical profiling stations around North America,
and begin producing improved decision support tools, including regional carbon
maps. This theme also includes funding for the increased computing needs at the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, New Jersey, and fur-
ther development of the global ocean observing system to meet long-term observa-
tional requirements of operational forecast centers, research programs, and major
scientific assessments. This initiative builds on the FY 2003 request, focusing on the
effective use of scientific knowledge in climate policy and management decisions to
reduce uncertainties in climate science and develop research and operational climate
products based on science. This strategy is aligned with National Academy of
Science recommendations, and takes operational climate forecast capabilities to a
24x7 world.
Climate Symposium Event
From December 35, 2002, under the leadership of James R. Mahoney, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA and 12 other U.S. Gov-
ernment Agencies hosted a major workshop in Washington, DC under the umbrella
of the newly formed U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP in-
corporates both the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program and the Climate
Change Research Initiative. The workshop responded to the Presidents initiative to
make the U.S. global change and climate change science programs more objective,
sensitive to uncertainties and open for public debate. The workshop specifically fo-
cused on reviewing the CCSPs draft strategic plan for climate change and global
change studies, with an emphasis on developing short-term (two- to four-year) prod-
ucts to support climate change policy and resource management decision-making.
The FY 2003 budget for the CCSP is approximately $1.75 billion. The NOAA re-
quest for CCRI for Fiscal Year 2004 is $41.6 million, out of a government-wide $182
million.
NOAAs Climate Services Program
The nation needs accurate, comprehensive and timely information about climate
variability and trends, climate change and climate uncertainties. NOAAs Climate
Services Program is an integrated endeavor designed to develop and deliver climate
information, thereby providing an improved basis for climate-related decision-mak-
ing. NOAAs Climate Services Program will be managed in a new way within the
organization. NOAA has instituted a new Climate Office. The new NOAA Climate
Office will consist of representatives from each of the NOAA Line Offices (NOAA
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS),
NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) and NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Research (OAR)) and will focus on all NOAA climate programs. This is in
contrast with the current NOAA Climate Observations and Services Program office,
which primarily focuses on new climate funding and only has representatives from
OAR, NWS and NESDIS. The new NOAA Climate Office will work on NOAAs cli-
mate programs, as well as supporting NOAAs efforts in the interagency Climate
Change Science Program. It will be established in accordance with the matrix man-
agement principles outlined in the Program Review Report (while the existing Cli-
mate Observations and Services Program office will form the basis of the new
17
NOAA Climate Change and Variability Office and will continue to be hosted by
OAR).
One of NOAAs top strategic goals in this area is to understand and enhance soci-
etys adaptation to climate variability and change. NOAA has initiated a new Cli-
mate Services Program in an effort to coordinate climate activities across all NOAA
line offices. NOAA is requesting $2.0 million to help improve our understanding of
how climate change affects marine and coastal ecosystems in the Bering Sea and
Gulf of Alaska. The waters of Alaska are the most productive fisheries in the world
and are home to a wide variety of ecosystems. While NOAA is aware of changes oc-
curring in the climate, we currently lack comprehensive understanding of how these
processes can effect biological and other changes in marine ecosystems. The study
of the effects of climate changes upon fisheries, marine mammals and birds, ocean
temperatures and currents, and other impacted areas is an important task to ensure
that the fisheries remain productive in the 21st century. These funds will be used
to develop and implement models to understand these dynamics and will fund long-
term observations and studies to correlate the relationships between climate and
changes in marine ecosystems. Researchers in the Northwest Climate Impacts
Group interact with stakeholders to develop and test products based on stake-
holders needslinking climate and weather information to marine ecosystems
(chiefly Pacific salmon); hydrology and water resources (including hydropower, forest
resources), coastal resources; and health.
NOAAs success in providing integrated climate services to the nation can be at-
tributed to NOAAs unified strategy for transitioning research into systematic and
sustained outreach. Specifically, NOAAs Climate Services Program will benefit from
the participation of several NOAA line offices: NWS, NESDIS, and OAR are the pri-
mary producers of climate information within NOAA. It is also important to ac-
knowledge the role of the NOAA Officer Corps. The NOAA Corps operates a fleet
of research vessels and aircraft that directly contribute to and support these line
offices with implementing their climate research, observations and service activities.
NOAA Climate Partnerships, Education, and Outreach Efforts
NOAA maintains partnerships with universities, private industry, other U.S.
agencies, nations and international bodies to observe and monitor the climate, fur-
ther scientific knowledge, and make climate assessments/predictions. NOAA also
works closely with private sector partners to develop products to meet stakeholders
needs and to ensure that the data and information delivered are readily understood
and can be used to develop value-added tailored products and services for business,
industry and the public.
Climate is a key issue for NOAA and its strategic goals for the future. From ob-
servations to research to operational product delivery, NOAA maintains significant
involvement in helping the nation and the world respond to the impacts of climate
variability and change. NOAA manages several global data basesfor meteorology,
oceanography, solid earth geophysics, and solarterrestrial sciences. From these
sources, NOAA develops and provides environmental data and information products
and services. NOAA gathers global data about the oceans, Earth, air, space, and sun
and their interactions to describe and predict the state of the physical environment.
The Presidents CCRI led to the creation of a new interagency framework to en-
hance coordination of Federal resources and research activities. Under this frame-
work, thirteen Federal agencies are working together under the leadership of a Cab-
inet-level committee on climate change to improve the value of U.S. Climate Change
research. Even in this time of difficult budget decisions, the President is committed
to fully funding climate research so that we can continue to reduce the uncertainties
associated with climate change.
Ecosystem Forecasting & Management ($1,017.1M, $76.0M increase)
NOAA is the largest regulatory agency within the Department of Commerce. Most
NOAA regulatory functions and activities are captured under this budget theme.
$52.7 million of the increase in this theme involves investments in rebuilding fish-
eries, and conserving and restoring living marine resources and habitats. This
theme focuses on enhancing the understanding of the physical, chemical and biologi-
cal components of ocean and coastal ecosystems by supporting research and pre-
diction of impacts of environmental factors on the distribution and fate of species
and their habitats. Another important activity carried out under this theme is satis-
fying immediate legal and regulatory requirements of resource stewardship, includ-
ing Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act, Northeast Ground-
fish observers, regulatory streamlining, socioeconomic capacity and management of
the Columbia River Biological Opinion process. This area also includes a reduction
18
of $20 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty for which all U.S. obligations have been
met.
The largest portion of the funding requested under this theme, $57.4 million, and
23 FTE, is for the National Sea Grant College Program. The Administration had
previously requested that this program be moved to the National Science Founda-
tion, and is now requesting that the program be retained within NOAA. This pro-
gram serves more than 300 participating institutions nationwide, and has a network
of more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, outreach experts, educators and students.
Research initiated under this theme includes studying the influence of climate
change on the stewardship of coastal and marine ecosystems, and the scientific basis
for management of fisheries to rebuild fisheries and recover protected species. Spe-
cifically, as I mentioned earlier, this theme includes $2.0 million for improving the
understanding and prediction of climate change on major U.S. marine and coastal
ecosystems in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska.
It also includes $3.0 million to modernize and expand stock assessments. This
funding will add 170 research days at sea which will be used to improve the com-
prehensiveness, timeliness, quality and communication of state-of-the-art assess-
ments to NOAA Fisheries and the Regional Fishery Management Councils. The re-
sulting assessments will be of higher quality and more frequency, which reduces the
uncertainty in choosing and monitoring rebuilding and management policies. This
improvement in the scientific basis for mangement will raise the confidence and cer-
tainty of both fishery managers and the industry that our management strategies
are necessary and sufficient to return the greatest benefits to the nation.
$2.0 million is also requested for 10 FTE for Section 7 consultations. This new
funding will help NOAA meet the court-ordered deadlines to conduct consultations
on pesticides with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
There is also $3.0 million included in this theme that will be used to increase the
number of New England Groundfish observers to meet the court ordered level of 10
percent observer coverage in the region.
The $3.1 million requested for the Federal Columbia River Power System Biologi-
cal Opinion (Columbia River BiOp), and Basin-wide Recovery Strategy will be used
to ensure that management activities necessary for this program are undertaken.
This includes allowing NOAA fisheries to promote subbasin planning, enhance re-
covery planning, and review passage and screening enhancements in priority water-
sheds.
The $2.8 million requested for reducing bycatch will be used to support approxi-
mately 2,000 days at sea for observers. These days at sea will be used to enhance
and coordinate technical expertise to respond to bycatch issues, including examining
existing bycatch reduction methods, evaluating their effectiveness, and designing
and testing new methods. These additional funds would complement existing marine
mammal efforts and the provisions of the Administrations legislative proposal for
the Marine Mammal Protection Act to reduce mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing. These efforts include the collection of
data to assess the impact of fishery mortality on marine mammals and to evaluate
and develop new fishing gear or practices.
This theme also includes $1.5 million for regulatory streamlining activities, to im-
prove NOAAs ability to administer the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and other regulatory collection activities through the development of an information
technology (IT) system.
Energy & Commerce ($116.0M, $7.7M increase)
This theme includes a $17 million investment in the safety and productivity of
our nations waterways and harbors which will help sustain our economy by increas-
ing the levels of trade and improve our abilities in forecasting regional climate and
temperature variations which will serve to improve power forecasting and result in
savings for the power industry and other public groups.
This theme also incorporates $1.2 million to support our High Impact Weather in-
vestment. This investment enhances the modernization of the NOAA National
Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observer Network, which provides the nation
with a network of state-of-the-art measurement, monitoring, and communication
equipment for surface weather data collection. This includes the modernization of
307 Cooperative Observers Program (COOP) stations in New England.
Also included is $2.0 million to build and maintain an additional 100 electronic
navigational charts (ENC) to provide contiguous coverage of the Gulf of Mexico and
the east coast of the United States. This will go a long way towards helping us
achieve our goal of expanding the ENC inventory to a total of 550 by 2006, just over
half the 1000 ENCs required to achieve full coverage of all U.S. waters.
19
Another element of this theme is the $1.0 million investment in the development
of additional forecast model systems for key ports and bays to promote the safe and
efficient transit of cargo through our waterways. This will provide full three-dimen-
sional coverage of a commercial port for water levels, current fields, salinity and
water temperature and help measure under-keel ship clearances.
The $2.0 million for a Vessel Time Charter to expand our hydrographic surveying
capacity is also included in this theme. The funds requested for this activity in FY
2004 build on the request from FY 2003, allowing the vessel to operate in both the
Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, collecting data on an additional 550 square nautical
miles. Using both government and private resources to collect this data will allow
NOAA to accomplish this goal efficiently in FY 2004.
Another system that requires upgrades is the National Water Level Observation
Network (NWLON), which is over 20 years old. The requested $1.5 million for
NWLON will be used to repair these ailing stations, which provide data used for
nautical charting, real-time navigation, hazardous material response efforts, and
tsunami and storm surge warnings, to name a few uses.
Environmental Monitoring & Prediction ($1,600.6 M, $99.5M increase)
This theme is organized around two components-observing platforms and sus-
taining current capabilities. Environmental Monitoring and Prediction includes a
$35.4 million investment by the Agency (not including $122.4 million for Geo-
stationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), Polar Operational Environ-
mental Satellite (POES) and the National Polar Orbiting Operational Environ-
mental Satellite (NPOESS)) to support technological advancements in NOAAs se-
vere weather prediction efforts. This theme includes data collection activities on the
status and health of the ecosystem. This area also covers the maintenance of the
infrastructure needed to ensure basic operations and safety of NOAA employees,
and incorporates and expands NOAAs satellite monitoring and in situ observations.
The demand for these types of NOAA products and services is expected to rise sig-
nificantly over the next several years, particularly in the key areas of Homeland Se-
curity and Climate Change.
In light of the recent tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia, as Deputy Sec-
retary Bodman noted in his testimony before the House Science Committee on Feb-
ruary 13, I would like to remind the Committee that NASA and NOAA have a long
history as partners in the development of our environmental satellite systems. As
part of our routine support to the NASA shuttle program and satellite launches,
NESDIS and NWS provide specialized services, including space-based observations
and weather forecasts. At the time of the accident, NWS transmitted emergency
broadcasts in Texas and Louisiana via the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) network.
The FY 2004 request for the polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites ensures
the simultaneous operation of existing satellite series while supporting planned crit-
ical path acquisition activities for future systems. These data are used to predict
hurricanes and other types of severe weather, support search and rescue operations,
provide global monitoring and climate assessment and prediction, and monitor sig-
nificant events such as volcanic eruptions, wildfires and oil spills.
The bulk of the funding under this theme will be used to support NOAAs observ-
ing platforms. This includes a $50.2 million net increase for post launch require-
ments for GOES IM, the continued procurement of the GOESN series satellites,
instruments, ground systems and systems support necessary to maintain the con-
tinuity of geostationary operations, as well as planning and development of the
GOESR series of satellites and instruments. GOESR will significantly improve
weather forecasting as well as homeland security. To support the POES and
NPOESS programs, NOAA has requested a $31.5 million net increase in the FY
2004 budget. The NPOESS program will continue the space-based climate record,
as well as significantly improving weather forecasting and homeland security. The
satellites supported by NESDIS are used by NWS, NOS, NMFS and OAR to support
their weather, climate and navigation safety missions.
A relatively small $2.0 million of the funding requested under this theme is re-
quested to add sensors to the NOAAs Coastal Global Observing System to provide
definitive information on the effects of the changing climate on coastal communities
in the United States, and to improve ocean condition forecasts that adversely affect
coastline erosion. The funds will be used to add ocean instrumentation for surface
salinity, water temperature and currents to all the existing buoys and coastal ma-
rine stations operated by the National Buoy Data Center (NDBC). It adds 15
moored buoys and 15 coastal marine (CMAN) units in areas where data collection
buoys are sparse.
This theme also includes $1.3 million in funding requested to sustain the oper-
ations of the international research program known as THORpex, which stands for
20
The Observing Research and Predictability Experiment. THORpex seeks to gain a
better understanding of the global impact of weather predictability, with the goal
of improving our 3 day forecast accuracy to that of our current 2 day forecast, and
producing reliable forecasts up to 14 days in advance. This investment will be in
new technologies and improving our data assimilation and numerical weather pre-
diction capability.
An additional $1.3 million is requested under this theme for sustaining our flood
prediction capability along the Susquehanna River in the states of New York, Penn-
sylvania and Maryland. The Susquehanna is a 444-mile river whose basin extends
from Cooperstown, NY, to the Chesapeake Bay. It sustains six times the nations
average in flood damages per square mile each year. The $1.3 million can be broken
down as follows: $0.6 million for flood forecast enhancements, $0.5 million for the
data network and $0.2 million for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for
Outreach and Community Assistance.
We are also asking for $3.6 million to sustain our weather warning and forecast
services for the Pacific Islands. This will allow NOAA to continue providing upper-
air and aviation surface observations in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau. These observations are
critical to accurately forecasting weather events in the Pacific Region.
Another important element covered by this theme is aircraft maintenance. We are
requesting $1.5 million for necessary aircraft maintenance including manufacturer-
required, mid-life inspection of our GIV aircraft used for hurricane surveillance
and winter storms reconnaissance. $1.6 million is also requested for a replacement
aircraft to conduct snow surveys. The aircraft currently used for this purpose is ex-
periencing an increase in unscheduled maintenance downtime, and this aircraft pro-
vides critical data as part of our airborne snow survey program.
Another area where we are looking to add funding for a technology infusion is for
our NWS Telecommunications Gateway. The $2.9 million requested for this purpose
will be used to reduce time delays for disseminating critical hydrometeorological
data for NWS national centers, weather forecast offices, and other federal agencies
and partners that rely on this data for operations. This funding will address electric
power and facility deficiencies, and be used to replace the communications matrix
switch, and some enterprise servers and front-end processors. The servers and proc-
essor replacement activity will be ongoing because it is a two-year refresh program.
These pieces of equipment need to be replaced in order to meet our goal of achieving
transmit times of less then 10 seconds for watches and warnings by 2005. Currently
the average delay is between one and two minutes. More efficient information tech-
nology equipment is the key to reducing this transmit time to the required level by
2005. Another area that warrants investment is NEXRAD technology deployment.
The $3.7 million requested for this activity will also improve lead times, expanding
average tornado warning lead times from 11 minutes to 15 minutes by 2007, and
increasing the forecasters ability to detect small tornadoes. This investment will
allow NOAA to purchase and deploy 82 all Open Radar Data Acquisition (ORDA)
systems prior to the onset of severe-weather season in FY 2005, and complete de-
ployment of ORDA systems by the end of FY 2006. Supporting these programs and
initiatives will significantly improve NOAAs ability to support weather and water,
ecosystems, and homeland security programs.
Other Key Projects/Programs in FY 2004 Presidents Budget
Some of the other key areas of investment in the FY 2004 budget request include
funding for our laboratory research programs, which provide for continued ocean ob-
servations, baseline observatories, and climate change assessments. Funding also
provides for our SEARCH program that focuses on detection of climate change in
the Arctic, and to continue NOAAs Energy Initiative, which consists of high impact
weather and air quality activities, including funding for the Joint Hydrography Cen-
ter in New Hampshire. Funding is also provided for undersea exploration, research,
and technology in both the deep ocean and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
as well as to maintain our fundamental data collection and assimilation for the Na-
tional Weather Service. This type of funding also allows NOAA to continue the ves-
sel monitoring system for our enforcement and surveillance activities.
Conclusion
NOAAs Fiscal Year 2004 Budget request invests in our priority areas: people, cli-
mate, energy, homeland security, infrastructure, research, science, and services. In
this time of tight budgets and difficult funding decisions, this budget maintains
NOAA on its course to realize its full potential as this nations premier environ-
mental science agency. The new thematic budget structure reflects NOAAs business
approach as an integrated NOAA team which responds to the needs our customers
21
and employees have voiced in workshops and communications efforts. NOAA is also
doing its part to exercise fiscal responsibility as stewards of the Nations trust as
well as Americas coastal and ocean resources. And, in the same way that NOAA
is responsible for assessing the Nations climate, we have assessed and are improv-
ing our management capabilities. NOAA will continue to respond to key customers
and stakeholders, and will continue to leverage its programs and investments by de-
veloping those associations that most efficiently and economically leverage resources
and talent, and that most effectively provide the means for successfully maintaining
NOAA mission requirements. NOAAs budget strongly demonstrates the success of
performance budgeting, where funding has been matched by results. Each request
in the Technical Budget includes specific goals and descriptions of expected perform-
ance factors. NOAA Senior Management is now required to report every quarter on
a set of performance measures that have come to be known as The Administrators
Metrics. This new set of reporting requirements reflects NOAAs commitment to
Management by Fact, a philosophy NOAA will continue to demonstrate through-
out Fiscal Year 2004 and beyond. Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAAs
Fiscal Year 2004 budget.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Admiral Lautenbacher.

Ms. Hecker?
STATEMENT OF JAYETTA Z. HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-
FRASTRUCTURE TEAM, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
(GAO)
Ms. HECKER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Senator Ste-
vens.
I want to start by thanking you for your kind words and reassure
you that, indeed, it has been a pleasure working the Coast Guard
portfolio. And, in fact, looking at both you and Senator Stevens
here, it is with the Coast Guard that I have had the pleasure to
visit both Maine and Alaska and look at the important missions,
the many varied and significant missions, to each of your states.
So while I would go to either state on my own, I have seen the
Coast Guard operations in both states.
Basically, my remarks here will cover three areas, and I will try
to get through them quickly so we can get to your questions. The
first one is the current and historical activity patterns of the Coast
Guard in the post-9/11 environment, and some comparative data.
Then the second is the implications or what kind of impact we see
from the 2004 budget on those traditional levels; and then summa-
rize with some key challenge the agency faces in trying to balance
its resources and maximize its effectiveness in this very resource-
intensive environment.
Regarding the issue of the update on trends, we completed a re-
port in November 2002 for this Subcommittee and conducted a de-
tailed review of all the data available and all the ways to measure
the level of effort that the Coast Guard was able to perform in its
varied missions.
Basically, the way I will summarize it today, and we have up-
dated this to the most recent quarter, there are several missions
that, of course, have substantial increases, and that is the coastal
security area; there are several that have been relatively stable,
about the same over time; and then there are some that have seen
some very significant drops.
The first one, on my right here, is the chart on coastal and port
security. This is based on data current as of the quarter ending,
December 31, 2002. This is operational activity data for all of the
major mission areas, so this is all the cutters and all of the air as-
22
sets. And you can see what a very low level it was before 9/11.
Then it shoots up in the quarter immediately after 9/11. And then
trying to attempt to restore some new normalcy, you see it coming
down, but then you see it shooting up, and that second peak is ba-
sically with the July 4th, 2002, and the period representing the an-
niversary of 9/11 (September 11th, 2002), when there was another
peak.
The two areas where there has been relative stability after the
adjustment of that first quarter are basically SAR and aids to navi-
gation. The Coast Guard has said it will not let SAR be com-
promised, and the data shows that it has not been.
In two areas, drug interdiction and fisheries, there have been
dramatic reductions over time. These charts represent actual data
of the resource utilization of Coast Guard assets since 1998, and
there was basically a reduction of about a third, from the 1998 pe-
riod to the most recent quarter. You can see that there was an even
more dramatic reduction, a two-thirds reduction in the use of the
assets, in the drug interdiction area.
Let me move now to my second area, that is, What is the impact
of the proposed 2004 budget on some of these areas that have expe-
rienced such dramatic shortfalls? basically, this is the question
that this Committee and, in fact, the entire Congress asked in
passing the homeland security legislation. The Congress focusing
on the broad range of Coast Guard activities, is interested in know-
ing when the activity levels for all the missions will be restored to
pre-9/11 levels?
Our analysis of the budget and the current situation leads us to
conclude that it is unlikely that these mission areas, particularly
drug interdiction and fisheries, can be restored to historical levels
anytime soon. And, basically I have several reasons to support our
conclusion here.
First regarding the 2004 budget, I think, as the Commandant
said, the two real priorities are port and coastal security and SAR.
That is where most of the major funding increases for new initia-
tives are. So there are no new resources in 2004, really, for these
law enforcement areas that have been so significantly affected.
The second, of course, is thatand it is interesting, if you look
back to the chart on the port security; there is an inverse relation-
shipThese resources are finite. Thus, the more resources that go
into one areasuch as an increase in the port securitythere is
a corresponding decrease in other areas. The same assets are used
for both. They can be either one place or another. Sometimes, they
are able to do both, but, for the most part, there is a fundamental
trade-off.
The third point is that unexpected, external events drive the use
of resources. In the last year, there have been surges again of
thatfor the July 4th and first anniversary of 9/11. There were
corresponding decreases in the other areas. And, in fact, there is
a new surge happening in the current quarter, that can be attrib-
uted to the period of the orange alert and the resources going over-
seas for the Gulf War. There is significant decline in some missions
that, again, are going to be reflected in activity data for the quarter
ending March 31, 2003.
23
The fourth point is that the full cost of the recently enacted Mar-
itime Transportation Security Act is not yet reflected in this FY
2004 budget request, and that is understandable. MTSA was
passed after the FY04 budget request was formulated. Of course,
the FY03 budget had been finalized, not passed. So, there are sev-
eral responsibilities that the Coast Guard is already having to as-
sume, and those resources will have to come out of other areas,
from current resources. The Coast Guard says that in the next
budget the full cost impact of MTSA implementation will be seen.
Now, there is another issue in the budget that has some longer-
term implications, and the Commandant brought this up, and I
want to underscore the importance of the Deepwater Project and
how vital it is to so many missions. And as he said, and as you
said, the funding for the Deepwater Project is already behind
schedule. The calculations we have, which are higher than yours,
Madam Chairbasically because it reflects the management re-
sources for the Coast Guard, not just the contractorare already
$83 million less than planned this year alone, and $200 million for
the first 2 years, in real terms. So the agency is already in the hole
in terms of funding. And I am very sorry to report, and I am sure
the Commandant will confirm, that they are already having to
delay the delivery of new patrol aircraft for 19 months, and the
conversion of the 110-patrol boats, because of this shortage. There
is a very real impact to those shortages. You know, the Com-
mandant must defend the budget and say that he is going to do
the best, but the best with it is basically having to make some ac-
commodations already.
We are concerned about further significant funding shortfalls
not only because of delayed delivery of assets. It has a rolling effect
because the total Deepwater assets will cost more, the agency must
operate the old assets longer, and more resources are required to
maintain the legacy assets for a longer period of time. Also, fund-
ing shortfalls basically start to have a negative impact on the very
missions that are already below the 9/11 activity levels.
Basically, you see that we have some real concerns. Our rec-
ommendation here is the same as we had in our November 2002
report. The budget increases have been very substantial and gen-
erous by this committee and the Congress over the last 2 years
and, in fact, since 1998; however, there are fundamental challenges
the Coast Guard faces in really balancing its mission and in at-
tempting to accomplish the many missions that it has been as-
signed.
We believe it is time for a candid acknowledgment that the Coast
Guard really cannot continue to be all things for all people, and
that, at least in the short-run, the Coast Guard is not going to be
able to reach its pre-9/11 activity levels in a number of key mis-
sions.
What we have called for is a comprehensive blueprint that as-
sists the Congress in recognizing the tradeoffs that are already oc-
curring and the effort to balance and carry out the full range of
missions and defining the new normalcy. The Coast Guard has
agreed with this, and they have some efforts underway to try to ad-
dress it. We think it should receive more urgency. In fact, my state-
ment today contains some very specific clarifications or refinements
24
to our November 2002 recommendations of what this blueprint

should include.
Realistic targets for levels of efforts are needed. For example,
what is the drug target level of effort? The Coast Guard is clearly
in a different environment that may affect the efficacy of the tar-
gets that were set by the ONDCPand this is a homeland security
mission. This is a mission that it is important; it is documented
that illegal drug money finances terrorists, and yet there must be
tradeoffs made among missions to provide resources for coastal se-
curity.
So what are the real realistic targets for different level of efforts?
What are the action plans for achieving those targets? What are
some realistic performance measures for all of the missions? And
finally, developing an approach that collects and reports and brings
this data to the Congress with respect to levels of effort as well as
the extent performance goals were met in a useful, meaningful
way. Thus, the Congress can make the difficult policy and budget
choices that you are forced to make in these times.
That concludes my statement. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair and Senator Stevens.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hecker follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAYETTA Z. HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, GAO
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 budget
request for the Coast Guard and the challenges the agency faces in this and future
budgets. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has had
to reinvent itself in many respects, shifting its focus and resources from many of
its traditional missionssuch as stemming the flow of illegal drugs and protecting
important fishing groundsto homeland security. The Presidents Fiscal Year 2004
budget request for the Coast Guard is $6.8 billion, a 9.6 percent increase in nominal
dollars from the previous year. If the request is approved, about half of the agencys
operating expenses will be directed to fulfilling expanded homeland security respon-
sibilities. Howand whetherthe Coast Guard can continue to meet its responsibil-
ities for all of its missions, given the increased emphasis on and resources required
for homeland security, is a matter of great concern to the Congress.
My testimony today, which is based on recently completed work, addresses three
topics: (1) the most recent levels of effort for the Coast Guards various missions,
and how these levels compare to those in the past; (2) the implications of the pro-
posed 2004 budget for these various levels of effort; and (3) the challenges the Coast
Guard faces in balancing its resources among its missions and ensuring and maxi-
mizing its effectiveness in each of its missions. The scope and methodology of our
review is described in the appendix.
In summary
The most recent levels of effort for the Coast Guards various missions, as meas-
ured by the use of multiple-mission resources such as cutters, patrol boats, and air-
craft, show clearly the dramatic increase in the amount of time spent on homeland
security following the September 11th attacks. In the months after the attacks, as
the initial surge in homeland security activities was abating, activity in many other
missions began returning to pre-September 11th levels, but some have not yet recov-
ered. For example, the amount of resource hours currently being spent on search
and rescue and maintaining aids to navigation are fairly consistent with traditional
levels over the last 5 years. However, there have been substantial declines from tra-
ditional levels of time spent on two law enforcement missionsfisheries enforce-
ment and drug interdiction. Although the Coast Guard Commandant has stated that
the Coast Guard would like to return all law enforcement missions to 93 percent
of pre-September 11th levels by the end of 2003 and 95 percent by the end of 2004,
it appears unlikely that the Coast Guard can meet these goals. Achieving these
goals depends heavily on not having to respond to such contingencies as heightened
terror alerts or deployment of Coast Guard resources in military operations. How-
25
ever, in the current environment, such contingencies continue to occur, as evidenced
by the recent deployment of several cutters and patrol boats to the Persian Gulf as
part of the Middle East buildup.
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the Coast Guard contains little that
would substantially change the levels of effort for most missions. The budget request
of $6.8 billion represents an increase of about $592 million, or almost 10 percent
over the previous year. About $168 million is earmarked for new initiatives, mainly
in homeland security and search and rescue missions. Coast Guard officials said
that some of the new initiatives, such as establishing better intelligence networks,
would have potential benefit for other security-related missions, such as migrant
and drug interdiction, but the initiatives do not directly pertain to augmenting ac-
tivities or adding new capacity in those missions that have seen substantial declines
in activity.
Although the Coast Guard has received substantial budget increases in recent
years to deal with its increased responsibilitiesa trend that continues in the pro-
posed budgetthe Coast Guard still faces fundamental challenges in being able to
accomplish all the responsibilities it has been given. The Coast Guards Deepwater
Project, a modernization effort for cutters, patrol boats, and aircraft, has already ex-
perienced delays in the delivery of key assets, jeopardizing the agencys future abil-
ity to carry out a number of missions at optimum levels. This situation could worsen
because the Coast Guard has tied successful completion of the project to levels of
funding that are beyond what has been available. Another budgetary challenge is
that, for the foreseeable future, the Coast Guard must implement a variety of re-
cently mandated homeland security tasks by taking resources from other activities.
Similarly, any unexpected changessuch as terrorist attacks or extended terror
alertscould also result in using resources for homeland security purposes that
would normally be used for other missions. Such challenges raise serious concerns
about the Coast Guards ability to meet traditional expectations across the broad
range of all of its missions. In recent reports 1, we have pointed to several steps that
are needed in such an environment. One is to continue finding ways to operate more
efficiently to maximize the existing resources available. Another is to develop a com-
prehensive blueprint for accomplishing mission responsibilities. This blueprint needs
to recognize the new operating reality created by the Coast Guards increasing
homeland security role and translate that reality into establishing realistic level-of-
effort targets for all of its missions, a plan for achieving these targets, and appro-
priate measurement and reporting of results so that the agency and the Congress
can better decide how limited dollars can be spent.
Background
The Coast Guard, which became a part of the Department of Homeland Security
on March 1, 2003, has a wide variety of both security and nonsecurity missions. (See
table 1.) The Coast Guards equipment includes 141 cutters, approximately 1,400
small patrol and rescue boats, and about 200 aircraft. Coast Guard services are pro-
vided in a variety of locations, including ports, coastal areas, the open sea, and in
other waterways like the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. The Coast Guards
installations range from small boat stations providing search and rescue and other
services to marine safety offices that coordinate security and other activities in the
nations largest ports.
Table 1: Security and Nonsecurity Missions of the Coast Guard

Mission area * Activities and functions within each mission area
Security Missions
Ports, waterways, and Conducting harbor patrols, vulnerability assessments, intelligence

coastal security gathering and analysis, and other activities to prevent terrorist at-
tacks and minimize the damage from attacks that occur.
Drug interdiction Deploying cutters and aircraft in high drug trafficking areas and
gathering intelligence to reduce the flow of illegal drugs across mar-
itime boundaries.
Migrant interdiction Deploying cutters and aircraft to reduce the flow of undocumented mi-
grants entering the United States by maritime routes.
1 Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of Effort for All Missions.
GAO03155 (Washington, DC: Nov. 12, 2002), and Homeland Security: Challenges Facing the
Coast Guard as it Transitions to the New Department. GAO03467T (Washington, DC: Feb 12,
2003)
26
Table 1: Security and Nonsecurity Missions of the Coast GuardContinued
Mission area * Activities and functions within each mission area
Defense readiness Participating with the Department of Defense (DoD) in global military
operations; deploying cutters and other boats in and around harbors
to protect DoD force mobilization operations.
Nonsecurity Missions
Maritime safety Setting standards and conducting vessel inspections to better ensure
the safety of passengers and crew aboard cruise ships, ferries, and
other passenger vessels and commercial and fishing vessels;
partnering with states and boating safety organizations to reduce
recreational boating deaths.
Search and rescue Operating small boat stations and national distress and response com-
munication system; conducting search and rescue operations for
mariners in distress.
Living marine re- Protecting our nations fishing grounds from foreign encroachment;
sources enforcing domestic fishing laws and regulations through inspections
and fishery patrols.
Environmental protec- Preventing and responding to marine oil spills; preventing the illegal
tion dumping of plastics and garbage into our nations waters.
Aids to navigation Maintaining the extensive system of navigation aids in our water-
ways; monitoring marine traffic through traffic service centers.
Ice operations Conducting polar operations to facilitate the movement of critical
goods and personnel in support of scientific and national security
activity; conducting domestic icebreaking operations to facilitate
year-round commerce.
Source: U.S. Coast Guard.
* The Coast Guards security and nonsecurity missions are delineated in the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107296, Nov. 25, 2002).
As an organization that is also part of the armed services, the Coast Guard has
both military and civilian positions. At the end of Fiscal Year 2002, the agency had
over 42,000 full-time positionsabout 36,000 military and about 6,600 civilians. The
Coast Guard also has about 7,200 reservists who support the national military
strategy and provide additional operational support and surge capacity during emer-
gencies, such as natural disasters. In addition, about 36,000 volunteer auxiliary per-
sonnel assist in a wide range of activities from search and rescue to boating safety
education.
Overall, after using Fiscal Year 2003 inflation-adjusted dollars to adjust for the
effects of inflation, the Coast Guards budget grew by about 41 percent between Fis-
cal Years 1993 and 2003. However, nearly all of this growth occurred in the second
half of the period. During fiscal years 19931998, after taking inflation into account,
the budget remained essentially flat. (See fig. 1.) Significant increases have occurred
since Fiscal Year 1998.
27
The events of September 11th caused the Coast Guard to direct its efforts increas-
ingly into maritime homeland security activities, highlighted by the Coast Guards
establishing a new program area: Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (coastal
security). Prior to September 11th, activities related to this area represented less
than 10 percent of the Coast Guards operating budget, according to Coast Guard
officials. In the Fiscal Year 2004 request, Coastal Security represents about one-
quarter of the Coast Guards operating budget. Other mission areas, most notably
drug interdiction, have declined substantially as a percentage of the operating budg-
et.
Security Emphasis Continues to Affect Levels of Effort in Some Missions
The emphasis the Coast Guard placed on security after September 11th has had
varying effects on its level of effort among all of its missions, as measured by the
extent to which multiple-mission resources (cutters, other boats, and aircraft) are
used for a particular mission. The most current available data show that some secu-
rity-related missions, such as migrant interdiction and coastal security, have grown
significantly since September 11th. Other missions, such as search and rescue and
aids to navigation remained at essentially the same levels as they were before Sep-
tember 11th. However, the level of effort for other missions, most notably the inter-
diction of illegal drugs and fisheries enforcement, is substantially below pre-Sep-
tember 11th levels.
Missions with Increased Levels of Resources
Missions such as ports, waterways, and coastal security, and migrant interdiction
have experienced increased levels of effort. Coastal security has seen the most dra-
matic increase from pre-September 11th levels. (See fig. 2.) For example, it went
from 2,400 resource hours 2 during the first quarter of 1999, peaked at 91,000 hours
during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2002 (immediately after September 11, 2001),
and most recently stood at nearly 37,000 hours for the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2 The Coast Guard maintains information, on a mission-by-mission basis, about how cutters,
patrol boats, and aircraft are used. Each hour that these resources are used in a mission is
called a resource hour. Resource hours do not include such things as the time that the resource
stands idle or the time that is spent maintaining it.
heck1.eps
28
2003. In figure 2, as well as the other resource hour figures that follow, we have
added a line developed by using a linear regression 3 to show the general trend for
the period. It is important to note that while such lines depict the trend in resource
hours to date, they should not be taken as a prediction of future values. Other activ-
ity indicators, such as sea marshal 4 boardings, also demonstrate an increased em-
phasis in this area. Before September 11th, such boardings were not done, but as
of the first quarter of 2003 there have been over 550 such boardings. Similarly, ves-
sel operational control actions 5 have risen by 85 percent since the fourth quarter
of Fiscal Year 2001.
Given the emphasis on homeland security, it is not surprising that efforts to inter-
dict illegal immigrants have also increased. For example, during the first quarter
of 2003, the level of effort in this area was 28 percent higher than it was for the
comparable period in 1998.
Missions with a Steady State of Resources
Some of the Coast Guards traditional missions, such as aids to navigation and
search and rescue, have been the least affected by the increased emphasis on secu-
rity. While resource hours for both of these missions have declined somewhat since
the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1998, the overall pattern of resource use over the
past 5 years has remained consistent. Although search and rescue boats and buoy
tenders were used to perform homeland security functions immediately after Sep-
tember 11th, their doing so did not materially affect the Coast Guards ability to
3 Linear regression estimates the coefficients of the linear equation, involving one or more
independent variables, that best predict the value of the dependent variable.
4 Sea marshals are armed Coast Guard personnel who board selected vessels operating in and
around U.S. ports and harbors and take position on the ships bridge and other areas deter-
mined to be necessary to vessel safety. These teams provide additional security to ensure that
only authorized personnel maintain control of the vessel at all times.
5 Vessel operational control actions are efforts to control vessels and can include captain of
the port orders, administration orders, letters of deviation, and safety and the designation of
security zones.
heck2.eps
29
carry out its search and rescue or aids to navigation missions. Search and rescue
boats were initially redeployed for harbor patrols after the terrorist attacks, but the
impact on the mission was minimal because the deployments occurred during the
off-season with respect to recreational boating. 6 Similarly, some boats that normally
serve as buoy tendersan aids to navigation functionwere used for security pur-
poses instead, but they were among the first to be returned to their former missions.
For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003, the number of resource hours spent on
these missions was very close to the number spent during the comparable quarter
of Fiscal Year 1998.
6 Search and rescue resources are subject to seasonal cycles, with more resources being used
during the summer months when boating is at its peak.
30
Performance measurement data further demonstrates the relatively minimal im-

pact on these missions resulting from the Coast Guards emphasis on homeland se-
curity. For example, for search and rescue, the Coast Guard was within about half
a percentage point of meeting its target for saving mariners in distress in 2002 (84.4
percent actual, 85 percent goal). Likewise, data show that with respect to its aid
to navigation mission, in 2002 the Coast Guard was about 1 percent from its goal
of navigational aid availability (98.4 percent actual, 99.7 percent goal).
Missions with a Decline in Resource Hours
A number of missions have experienced declines in resource hours from pre-Sep-
tember 11th levels, including drug interdiction, fisheries enforcement (domestic and
heck3.eps
31
foreign), marine environmental protection, and marine safety. In particular, drug
enforcement and fisheries enforcement have experienced significant declines. Com-
pared with the first quarter of 1998, resource hours for the first quarter of Fiscal
Year 2003 represent declines of 60 percent for drug interdiction and 38 percent for
fisheries enforcement. (See fig. 4.) In fact, resource hours for these areas were de-
clining even before the events of September 11th, and while they briefly rebounded
in early 2002, they have since continued to decline. A Coast Guard official said the
recent decline in both drug enforcement and fisheries can be attributed to the
heightened security around July 4, 2002, and the anniversary of the September 11th
terrorist attacks, as well as the deployment of resources for military operations.
They said the decline will likely not be reversed during the second quarter of 2003
because of the diversion of Coast Guard cutters to the Middle East and the height-
ened security alert that occurred in February 2003.
32
The reduction in resource hours over the last several years in drug enforcement
is particularly telling. In the first quarter of 1998, the Coast Guard was expending
nearly 34,000 resource hours on drug enforcement, and as of first quarter of 2003,
the resource hours had declined to almost 14,000 hoursa reduction of nearly two-
thirds. Also, both the number of boardings to identify illegal drugs and the amount
of illegal drugs seized declined from the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000. The Coast
Guards goal of reducing the flow of illegal drugs based on the seizure rate for co-
caine has not been met since 1999. During our conversations with Coast Guard offi-
cials, they explained that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) set
heck4.eps
33
this performance goal in 1997, and although they recognize they are obligated to
meet these goals, they believe the goals should be revised.
Our review of the Coast Guards activity levels in domestic fishing shows U.S.
fishing vessel boardings and significant violations 7 identified are both down since
2000. The Coast Guard interdicted only 19 percent as many foreign vessels as it did
in 2000. 8 The reduced level of effort dedicated to these two missions is likely linked
to the Coast Guards inability to meet its performance goals in these two areas. For
instance, in 2002 the Coast Guard did not meet its goal of detecting foreign fishing
vessel incursions, 9 and while there is no target for domestic fishing violations, there
were fewer boardings and fewer violations in 2002 than in 2000.
Recently, the Coast Guard Commandant stated that the Coast Guard intends to
return law enforcement missions (drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, and fish-
eries enforcement) to 93 percent of pre-September 11th levels by the end of 2003
and 95 percent by the end of 2004. However, in the environment of heightened secu-
rity and the continued deployment of resources to the Middle East, these goals will
likely not be achieved, especially for drug interdiction and fisheries enforcement,
which are currently far below previous activity levels.
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request Will Not Substantially Alter Current
Levels of Effort
The Coast Guards budget request for Fiscal Year 2004 does not contain initiatives
or proposals that would substantially alter the current distribution of levels of effort
among mission areas. The request for $6.8 billion represents an increase of about
$592 million, or about 9.6 percent in nominal dollars, over the enacted budget for
Fiscal Year 2003. The majority of the increase covers pay increases for current or
retired employees or continues certain programs already under way, such as up-
grades to information technology. About $168.5 million of the increase would fund
new initiatives, most of which relate either to homeland security or to search and
rescue. Another $20.8 million of the increase is for the capital acquisitions re-
quest, 10 which totals $797 million. The capital acquisition request focuses mainly
on two projectsthe Deepwater Project for replacing or upgrading cutters, patrol
boats, and aircraft, and the congressionally mandated modernization of the mari-
time distress and response system.
Operating Expenses Would Increase by $440 Million
About $440 million of the $592 million requested increase is for operating ex-
penses 11 for the Coast Guards mission areas. This requested increase in operating
expenses is 10 percent higher than the amount for operating expenses in the en-
acted budget for Fiscal Year 2003. The requested increase is made up of the fol-
lowing:
pay increases and military personnel entitlements: $162.5 million; 12
funding of continuing programs and technical adjustments: $81 million; (These
are multiyear programs that the Coast Guard began in previous years. Exam-
ples include continuing development of information technology projects and op-
erating new shore facilities started with funds from previous budgets. Technical
adjustments provide for the annualization of expenditures that received only
partial-year funding in the prior Fiscal Year.)
Reserve training: $28 million; and
7 The Coast Guard defines significant violations as any or all of the following: (1) significant
damage or impact to the resource or the fisheries management plan, (2) significant monetary
advantage to the violator over the competition, or (3) a high regional interest of emotional or
political nature as determined by regional fisheries councils.
8 Activity data for foreign fishing vessels is a comparison of fourth quarters in 2000 and 2002.
9 In Fiscal Year 2002, the Coast Guards goal was to detect 250 foreign fishing vessel incur-
sions into U.S. fishing waters. Only 202 were detected that year.
10 For Fiscal Year 2004, the Capital Acquisition account includes funding previously requested
in the Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement account, and Research, Devel-
opment, Test and Evaluation accounts, as well as the Alteration to Bridges account. We have
reflected this change when making comparisons to the Fiscal Year 2003 enacted budget.
11 For Fiscal Year 2004, the Operating Expense account consolidates funding previously re-
quested in the Coast Guard Operating Expenses, Environmental Compliance and Restoration,
and Reserve Training accounts. We have reflected this change when making comparisons to the
Fiscal Year 2003 enacted budget.
12 This does not include an increase of $131 million in pay for retired personnel. Because retir-
ees are not part of ongoing operations, their pay is not considered to be an operating expense.
However, the $131 million increase for retired pay is included in the overall requested increase
of $592 million.
34
new initiatives: $168.5 million. (These initiatives are described in more detail
below.)
New Initiatives Relate Primarily to Search and Rescue and Homeland Security
The Coast Guards budget request includes three new initiativesone for search
and rescue and two for homeland security. (See table 2.) As such, these initiatives
do not represent substantial shifts in current levels of effort among missions. The
search and rescue initiative is part of a multiyear effort to address shortcomings in
search and rescue stations and command centers. In September 2001, the Depart-
ment of Transportation Office of the Inspector General reported that readiness at
search and rescue stations was deteriorating. 13 For example, staff shortages at most
stations required crews to work an average of 84 hours per week, well above the
standard (68 hours) established to limit fatigue and stress among personnel. The
initiative seeks to provide appropriate staffing and training to meet the standards
of a 12-hour watch and a 68-hour work week. The Congress appropriated $14.5 mil-
lion in Fiscal Year 2002 and $21.7 million in Fiscal Year 2003 for this initiative.
The amount requested for Fiscal Year 2004 ($26.3 million) would pay for an addi-
tional 390 full-time search and rescue station personnel and for 28 additional in-
structors at the Coast Guards motor lifeboat and boatswains mate schools.
Table 2: New Initiatives in the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request for Operational Expenses
New Initiative Amount (in millions)
Maritime Search and Rescue/Personnel Safety

390 new full time personnel for search and rescue stations and com-
mand centers
Additional Instructors and Training Enhancements $26.3
Maritime Domain Awareness
Intelligence program
Information sharing and systems $33.5
Homeland Security Operations
6 new marine safety and security teams
51 sea marshals
43 small response boats
2 port security units
Establish stations at Washington, DC and Boston $108.7
Total Fiscal Year 2004 new initiatives $168.5

Coast Guard officials said the two initiatives designed mainly for homeland secu-
rity purposes would help the Coast Guard in other mission areas as well. For exam-
ple, the information-sharing effort under maritime domain awareness is designed to
improve communications between cutters and land stations. It also pays for equip-
ping cutters with the universal automated identification system, which allows the
Coast Guard to monitor traffic in its vicinity, including the vessel name, cargo, and
speed. These capabilities are important not only for homeland security missions, but
also for law enforcement and search and rescue, according to Coast Guard officials.
Likewise, the units being added as part of the homeland security operations initia-
tive will focus primarily on security issues but will also serve other missions, accord-
ing to Coast Guard officials. For example, the new stations that would be estab-
lished in Washington and Boston would be involved in search and rescue, law en-
forcement, and marine environmental protection.
Capital Acquisition Budget Focuses on Two Main Projects
The capital acquisition budget request for Fiscal Year 2004 is $797 million, an in-
crease of $20.8 million in nominal dollars over Fiscal Year 2003. The majority of
the request will go to fund two projectsthe Integrated Deepwater System and the
Coast Guards maritime distress and response system, called Rescue 21. Other ac-
quisitions include new response boats to replace 41-foot utility boats which serve
multiple missions, more coastal patrol boats, as well as a replacement icebreaker
for the Great Lakes. (See table 3.)
13 Audit of the Small Boat Station Search and Rescue Program. MH200194 (Washington,
DC: Sept 14, 2001).
35
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Acquisition Budget Request
Item Amount (in millions)
Integrated Deepwater System $500.0

Other systems
Rescue 21 $134.0
Defense Message System implementation $4.5
Vessels and critical infrastructure projects
Great Lakes icebreaker replacement $2.0
41 utility boat replacement $12.0
Additional coastal patrol boats to enforce security zones $52.5
Personnel and related support costs $70.0
Research, development, testing, and evaluation $22.0
Total $797.0
At $500 million, the Deepwater Project accounts for about 63 percent of the
amount requested for capital acquisitions. This project is a long-term (20 to 30
years) integrated approach to upgrading cutters, patrol boats, and aircraft as well
as providing better links between air, shore, and surface assets. When the system
is fully operational, it will make the Coast Guard more effective in all of its mis-
sions, particularly law enforcement where deepwater cutters and aircraft are key to
carrying out critical functions such as drug and migrant interdiction and fisheries
enforcement.
Rescue 21, the second major program, provides for the modernization of the com-
mand, control, and communication infrastructure of the national distress and re-
sponse system. The current system suffers from aging equipment, limited spare
parts, and limited interoperability with other agencies. Of particular concern to the
Coast Guard and the maritime community are the current systems coverage gaps,
which can result in missed maritime distress calls. The Congress has mandated that
this system be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2006. The $134 million request
for Fiscal Year 2004 would keep the project on schedule, according to Coast Guard
officials.
Significant Challenges Raise Concerns About Coast Guards Ability to Accomplish Its
Diverse Missions
Despite the billion-dollar (19 percent) budget increase it has received over the
past 2 years, the Coast Guard faces fundamental challenges in attempting to accom-
plish everything that has come to be expected of it. We have already described how
the Coast Guard has not been able, in its current environment, to both assimilate
its new homeland security responsibilities and restore other missions, such as en-
forcement of laws and treaties, to levels that are more reflective of past years. The
Fiscal Year 2004 budget request does not provide substantial new funding to change
these capabilities, except for homeland security and search and rescue. In addition,
several other challenges further threaten the Coast Guards ability to balance these
many missions. The first is directly tied to funding for the Deepwater Project. The
project has already experienced delays in delivery of key assets and could face addi-
tional delays if future funding falls behind what the Coast Guard had planned. Such
delays could also seriously jeopardize the Coast Guards ability to carry out a num-
ber of security and nonsecurity missions. Similarly, for the foreseeable future, the
Coast Guard must absorb a variety of new mandated homeland security tasks by
taking resources from existing activities. To the extent that these responsibilities
consume resources that would normally go elsewhere, other missions will be af-
fected. Finally, in its new environment, the Coast Guard faces the constant possi-
bility that terror alerts, terrorist attacks, or military actions would require it to shift
additional resources to homeland security missions.
Such challenges raise serious concerns about the Coast Guards ability to be all
things to all people to the degree that the Coast Guard, the Congress, and the pub-
lic desire. In past work, we have pointed to several steps that the Coast Guard
needs to take in such an environment. These include continuing to address opportu-
nities for operational efficiency, especially through more partnering; developing a
comprehensive strategy for balancing resource use across all of its missions; and de-
veloping a framework for monitoring levels of effort and measuring performance in
achieving mission goals. The Coast Guard has begun some work in these areas;
however, addressing these challenges is likely to be a longer-term endeavor, and the
success of the outcome is not clear.
36
Continued Funding Shortfalls Could Delay the Deepwater Project and Adversely Af-
fect the Coast Guards Mission Capabilities
Under current funding plans, the Coast Guard faces significant potential delays
and cost increases in its $17 billion Integrated Deepwater Project. This project is
designed to modernize the Coast Guards entire fleet of cutters, patrol boats, and
aircraft over a 20-year period. Given the way the Coast Guard elected to carry out
this project, its success is heavily dependent on receiving full funding every year.
So far, that funding has not materialized as planned. Delays in the project, which
have already occurred, could jeopardize the Coast Guards future ability to effec-
tively and efficiently carry out its missions, and its law enforcement activitiesthat
is, drug and migrant interdiction and fisheries enforcementwould likely be af-
fected the most, since they involve extensive use of deepwater cutters and aircraft.
Under the projects contracting approach, the responsibility for Deepwaters suc-
cess lies with a single systems integrator and its contractors for a period of 20 years
or more. Under this approach, the Coast Guard has started on a course potentially
expensive to alter. It is based on having a steady, predictable funding stream of
$500 million in 1998 dollars over the next 2 to 3 decades. Already the funding pro-
vided for the project is less than the amount the Coast Guard planned for. The Fis-
cal Year 2002 appropriation for the project was about $28 million below the planned
level, and the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriated level was about $90 million below the
planning estimate. And even the Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the
Coast Guard is not consistent with the Coast Guards deepwater funding plan. If
the requested amount of $500 million for Fiscal Year 2004 is appropriated, this
would represent another shortfall of $83 million, making the cumulative shortfall
about $202 million in the projects first 3 years, according to Coast Guard data. If
appropriations hold steady at $500 million (in nominal dollars) through Fiscal Year
2008, the Coast Guard estimates that the cumulative shortfall will reach $626 mil-
lion. 14
The shortfalls in the last 2 Fiscal Years (2002 and 2003) and their potential per-
sistence could have serious consequences. The main impact is that it would take
longer and cost more in the long run to fully implement the deepwater system. For
example, due to funding shortfalls experienced to date, the Coast Guard has delayed
the introduction of the Maritime Patrol Aircraft by 19 months and slowed the con-
version and upgrade program for the 110-foot Patrol Boats. According to the Coast
Guard, if the agency continues to receive funding at levels less than planned, new
asset introductionsand the associated retirement of costly, less capable Coast
Guard legacy assetswill continue to be deferred.
The cost of these delays will be exacerbated by the accompanying need to invest
additional funds in maintaining current assets beyond their planned retirement
date because of the delayed introduction of replacement capabilities and assets, ac-
cording to the Coast Guard. For example, delaying the Maritime Patrol Aircraft will
likely require some level of incremental investment to continue safe operation of the
current HU25 jet aircraft. Similarly, a significant delay in the scheduled replace-
ment for the 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutter fleet could require an unplanned
and expensive renovation for this fleet.
System performanceand the Coast Guards capability to effectively carry out its
mission responsibilitieswould also likely be impacted if funding does not keep pace
with planning estimates. For example, Coast Guard officials told us that conversions
and upgrades for the 110-foot Patrol Boat would extend its operating hours from
about 1,800 to 2,500 per year. Once accomplished, this would extend the time these
boats could devote to both security and nonsecurity missions. Given the funding lev-
els for the project, these conversions and upgrades have been slowed. Coast Guard
officials also said that with significant, continuing funding shortfalls delaying new
asset introductions, at some point, the Coast Guard would be forced to retire some
cutters and aircrafteven as demand for those assets continues to grow. For exam-
ple, in 2002, two major cutters and several aircraft were decommissioned ahead of
schedule due to their deteriorated condition and high maintenance costs.
Some New Homeland Security Duties Are Not Fully Factored into the Coast Guards
Distribution of Resources
A second challenge is that the Coast Guard has been tasked with a myriad of new
homeland security requirements since the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request was for-
mulated and will have to meet many of these requirements by pulling resources
14 The $28 million shortfall is expressed in 2002 dollars, the $90 million shortfall in 2003 dol-
lars, and the $202 million shortfall in 2004 dollars. The $626 million dollar shortfall is ex-
pressed in 2008 dollars.
37
from other activities. Under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), 15
signed into law in November 2002, the Coast Guard must accomplish a number of
security-related tasks within a matter of months and sustain them over the long
term. MTSA requires the Coast Guard to be the lead agency in conducting security
assessments, developing plans, and enforcing specific security measures for ports,
vessels, and facilities. In the near term, the Coast Guard must prepare detailed vul-
nerability assessments of vessels and facilities it identifies to be at high risk of ter-
rorist attack. It must also prepare a National Maritime Transportation Security
Plan that assigns duties among federal departments and agencies and specifies co-
ordination with state and local officialsan activity that will require substantial
work by Coast Guard officials at the port level. The Coast Guard must also establish
plans for responding to security incidents, including notifying and coordinating with
local, state, and federal authorities.
Because the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request was prepared before MTSA was en-
acted, it does not specifically devote funding to most of these port security respon-
sibilities. Coast Guard officials said that they will have to absorb costs related to
developing, reviewing, and approving plans, including the costs of training staff to
monitor compliance, within their general budget. 16 Coast Guard officials expect that
the Fiscal Year 2005 budget request will contain funding to address all MTSA re-
quirements; in the meantime, officials said that the Coast Guard would have to per-
form most of its new port security duties without additional appropriation, and that
the funds for these duties would come from its current operations budget. The costs
of these new responsibilities, as well as the extent to which they will affect re-
sources for other missions, are not known.
External Uncertainties Place Additional Strain on Resources
Security alerts, as well as actions needed in the event of an actual terrorist at-
tack, can also affect the extent to which the Coast Guard can devote resources to
missions not directly related to homeland security. Coast Guard officials told us that
in the days around September 11, 2002, when the Office of Homeland Security
raised the national threat level from elevated to high risk, the Coast Guard reas-
signed cutters and patrol boats in response. In February 2003, when the Office of
Homeland Security again raised the national threat level to high risk, the Coast
Guard repositioned some of its assets involved in offshore law enforcement missions,
using aircraft patrols in place of some cutters that were redeployed to respond to
security-related needs elsewhere. While these responses testify to the tremendous
flexibility of a multi-mission agency, they also highlight what we found in our anal-
ysis of activity-level trendswhen the Coast Guard responds to immediate security
needs, fewer resources are available for other missions.
The Coast Guards involvement in the military buildup for Operation Enduring
Freedom in the Middle East further illustrates how such contingencies can affect
the availability of resources for other missions. As part of the buildup, the Coast
Guard has deployed eight 110-foot boats, two high-endurance cutters, four port secu-
rity units, and one buoy tender to the Persian Gulf. These resources have come from
seven different Coast Guard Districts. For example, officials from the First District
told us they sent four 110-foot patrol boats and three crews to the Middle East.
These boats are multi-mission assets used for fisheries and law enforcement, search
and rescue, and homeland security operations. In their absence, officials reported,
the First District is more flexibly using other boats previously devoted to other
tasks. For instance, buoy tenders have taken on some search and rescue functions,
and buoy tenders and harbor tug/icebreakers are escorting high-interest vessels. Of-
ficials told us that these assets do not have capabilities equivalent to the patrol
boats but have been able to perform the assigned mission responsibilities to date.
Several Types of Actions Needed to Address Challenges
In previous work, we have examined some of the implications of the Coast
Guards new operating environment on the agencys ability to fulfill its various mis-
sions. 17 This work, like our testimony today, has pointed to the difficulty the Coast
Guard faces in devoting additional resources to nonsecurity missions, despite the ad-
ditional funding and personnel the agency has received. In particular, we have sug-
15 Pub.L. 107295, Nov. 25, 2002.

16 TheCoast Guard had already begun work on two aspects of the legislation; these aspects
are accounted for in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. These two items are requirements
to (1) create marine safety and security teams and (2) to dispatch armed officers as sea marshals
for some port security duties.
17 Coast Guard: Budget and Management Challenges for 2003 and Beyond GAO02588T
(Washington, DC: Mar. 19, 2002), and Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring
Levels of Effort for All Missions GAO03155 (Washington, DC: Nov. 12, 2002).
38
gested that the following actions need to be taken as a more candid acknowledge-
ment of the difficulty involved:
Opportunities for increased operational efficiency need to be explored. Over the
past decade, we and other outside organizations, along with the Coast Guard
itself, have studied Coast Guard operations to determine where greater effi-
ciencies might be found. These studies have produced a number of recommenda-
tions, such as shifting some responsibilities to other agencies. One particular
area that has come to the forefront since September 11th is the Coast Guards
potential ability to partner with other port stakeholders to help accomplish var-
ious security and nonsecurity activities involved in port operations. Some effec-
tive partnerships have been established, but the overall effort has been affected
by variations in local stakeholder networks and limited information-sharing
among ports.
A comprehensive blueprint is needed for setting and assessing levels of effort and
mission performance. One important effort that has received relatively little at-
tention, in the understandable need to first put increased homeland security re-
sponsibilities in place, is the development of a plan that proactively addresses
how the Coast Guard should manage its various missions in light of its new op-
erating reality. The Coast Guards adjustment to its new post-September 11th
environment is still largely in process, and sorting out how traditional missions
will be fully carried out alongside new security responsibilities will likely take
several years. But it is important to complete this plan and address in it key
elements and issues so that it is both comprehensive and useful to decision
makers who must make difficult policy and budget choices. Without such a blue-
print, the Coast Guard also runs the risk of continuing to communicate that it
will try to be all things to all people when, in fact, it has little chance of actu-
ally being able to do so.
The Coast Guard has acknowledged the need to pursue such a planning effort,
and the Congress has directed it to do so. Coast Guard officials told us that as part
of the agencys transition to the Department of Homeland Security, they are updat-
ing the agencys strategic plan, including plans to distribute all resources in a way
that can sustain a return to previous levels of effort for traditional missions. In ad-
dition, the Congress placed a requirement in MTSA for the Coast Guard to submit
a report identifying mission targets, and steps to achieve them, for all Coast Guard
missions for Fiscal Years 20032005. However, this mandate is not specific about
the elements that the Coast Guard should address in the report.
To be meaningful, this mandate should be addressed with thoroughness and rigor
and in a manner consistent with our recent recommendationsit requires a com-
prehensive blueprint that embodies the key steps and critical practices of perform-
ance management. Specifically, in our November 2002 report on the progress made
by the Coast Guard in restoring activity levels for its key missions, we rec-
ommended an approach consisting of a long-term strategy outlining how the Coast
Guard sees its resourcescutters, boats, aircraft, and personnelbeing distributed
across its various missions, a time frame for achieving this desired balance, and re-
ports with sufficient information to keep the Congress apprised not only of how re-
sources were being used, but what was being accomplished. The Coast Guard agreed
that a comprehensive strategy was needed, and believes that they are beginning the
process to develop one. Table 4 provides greater explanation of what this approach
or blueprint would entail.
39
The events of recent months heighten the need for such an approach. During this
time, the budgetary outlook has continued to worsen, emphasizing the need to look
carefully at the results being produced by the nations large investment in homeland
security. The Coast Guard must be fully accountable for investments in its home-
land security missions and able to demonstrate what these security expenditures
are buying and their value to the nation. At the same time, recent events also dem-
onstrate the extent to which highly unpredictable homeland security events, such
as heightened security alerts, continue to influence the amount of resources avail-
able for performing other missions. The Coast Guard needs a plan that will help
the agency, the Congress, and the public understand and effectively deal with trade-
offs and their potential impacts in such circumstances.
Scope and Methodology
To determine the most recent levels of effort for the Coast Guards various mis-
sions and how these levels compare to those in the past, we reviewed the data from
the Coast Guards Abstract of Operations. These data, reported by crews of cutters,
boats, and aircraft, represent the hours that these resources spent in each of the
Coast Guards mission areas. We reviewed these data to identify how resources were
utilized across missions both before and after September 11th, and to identify any
trends in resource utilization. In addition, we spoke with Coast Guard officials at
headquarters about the use of Coast Guard resources both before and after Sep-
tember 11th.
To determine the implications of the proposed Fiscal Year 2004 budget request
for these various levels of effort, we reviewed the Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 budg-
et request for the Coast Guard, as well as the enacted budget for the Coast Guard
for Fiscal Year 2003. We used the Department of Commerces chain-weighted price
index for gross domestic product to adjust nominal dollare figures for the effect of
inflation. In addition, we spoke with Coast Guard officials within the Coast Guards
Office of Programs and Operations Directorate, the Marine Safety Directorate, and
the Integrated Deepwater Systems Program Office.
To identify the challenges the Coast Guard faces in balancing its resources among
its missions and ensuring and maximizing its effectiveness in each of its missions,
we reviewed our previous reports on performance management and developing per-
formance measures. We also reviewed Coast Guard strategic documents and dis-
cussed these with staff in the Coast Guards Program Management and Evaluation
Division. In addition, we met with officials from the Coast Guards Department of
Homeland Security Transition team to discuss strategic planning and transition
issues.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony today. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Ms. Hecker.

heck5.eps
40
Your testimony raises some serious concerns in terms of the abil-

ity of the Coast Guard to carry out its many missions. And obvi-
ously, that is something that we would like to address.
Now, Admiral Collins, in terms of your strategic plan and blue-
print for the future, have you addressed some of these issues that
Ms. Hecker has raised? I know that we discussed here last year the
obvious need for your agency to conduct all of the missions that are
required of you.
I mean it is, without question, a difficult burden to bear, even
with these budget increases of 30 percent over the fiscal 2002 budg-
et, 1.6 billion and 4600am I correct?in increased personnel.
Admiral COLLINS. 4,100.
Senator SNOWE. That does not stabilize the instability of these
different missions and your ability to accomplish them.
Admiral COLLINS. Clearly, we are insince 9/11 and prior to 9/
11, we are in a balancing tradeoff routine based upon risks, as we
discussed at previous hearings several weeks ago, and we pulse to
a given threat at a given time. Given those challenges, clearly it
was the case, as reflected in these spikeswhen we went to or-
ange, you pull resources away from fish and you pull resources
away from counter-drugs to address, on a temporary basis, that
particular threat and risk, and then you pulse the assets back. And
we are going to, for the foreseeable future, be confronted with those
kind of spikes as threat conditions change.
And I would be glad to provide to the staff and for the record our
calculations of employment hours. And by employment hours, I
mean the total number of boats, the total number of aircraft, the
total number of cutter hours that are available to us in a given
year. We have calculated a normalized level of those, normalized
being eight quarters prior to 9/11, and we normalize that on an an-
nual basis as a benchmark and then have compared it to the 2002
actual, 2003 projected, and 2004 projected. The total amount of em-
ployment hours that we have available toit is a capacity number;
it is the total capacity we have in our service relative to ships,
boats, and aircraftit is 541,561. That level in 2004, that grand-
total level of all those resources, is 731,437.
Now, what does reflect? It reflects that substantial investment by
the Administration and this Congress in the employment hours or
the tools that we have to do our business. When we program those
by the end of 2004 number, that 731,000 employment hours of
ships, boats, and aircraft across our mission set, we are starting to
approach pre9/11 levels. That assumes, from a port security per-
spective, Maritime Security Level 1. As you may recall, Madam
Chair, we have three security levelsMaritime Security Level 1, 2,
and 3. They go up as the threat goes up. Two roughly equates to
orange. One is the new normalcy. This list distribution is based
upon assuming a MARSEC1, maritime security 1, or yellow, or
below level. In that case, we are equal or exceed to aids to naviga-
tion level, we are equal or exceed the living marine resources level,
we are equal or exceed ice operations, we equal or exceed maritime
environmental protection, we are short marine safety, we are under
in drug interdiction. And overall, for enforcement of laws and trea-
ties, we feel that we would be within 5 or 7 percent cumulatively
across all our maritime security missions.
41
The point I am trying to make is, this is how going into 2004
or by the end ofeverything else being equal, and if we maintain
Maritime Security Level 1 during the entire course of the year, this
would be the distribution.
The problem is, we are not going to have Maritime Security
Level 1 throughout the entire year. We are going to have cases like
last July, we are going to have cases like that last month where
we spiked to orange. And we then changed the profile or the use
of the capacity to match that. That is prudent. That is wise. That
is appropriate. I think that is what the Nation wants us to do. And
we are prepared to do that while maintaining the necessary pos-
ture in other urgent priority missions, like search and rescue.
A long-winded answer for you. I would be glad to share this chart
with you and both the GAO. It is our view of the numbers averaged
over a longer period.
Senator SNOWE. Well, no, I appreciate that response. I certainly
would like to have that chart for the Committee, because we would
want to evaluate it. But I think the question is, do you believe that
the increases that we have provided raises the resources for all of
these missions equally? I mean, are you going to have fluctuations,
depending on the terrorist threat level.
42
Admiral COLLINS. It is not going to be equal, Madam Chair. I

think we are going to put our priority inwe are going to put our
priority in the highest risk to life. And whether that is
Senator SNOWE. At that moment in time.
Admiral COLLINS. At that moment in time. And whether that
isand it will maintainwe have enough capacity in the system
to maintain our high level of search and rescue standards that we
can maintain. And as Ms. Hecker mentioned, we have not moved
away from that. We are not planning to move away from that.
heck6.eps
43
One other comment. We should talk about performance as well

as the deployment of assets. And I would submit, if you look at the
performance even in 2001, when we diverted a lot of our assets
away from counter drugs and away from fish and away from mi-
grants, for 2001 we seized 78.6 metric tons of cocaine. That is the
second-largest seizure of cocaine in any year we have had. In 2002,
another year where we have had MARSEC2 conditions and we
had to reallocate resources, we seized 72.2 metric tons. Those are
enormous seizure rates.
Now, how did we do that when we dropped the allocation of re-
sources in it? We are getting better at the business. We are more
efficient. We are using intel very effectively. We have things like
helicopter interdiction squadron that is very effective in closing the
end game. We are very effective using Navy assets. Seventy-five
percent of the seizures coming out in 2002 were off gray hulls, were
a Coast Guard law-enforcement detachment off gray hulls. We are
getting greater participation by the French and the British and
others in the mission.
So there are other variables at our disposal we are trying to do
to get the same level of performance even though we have to divert
assets. So I think we are being as clever and as stewardship-wise
as we possibly can to continue to put pressure in the counter-drug
mission.
Senator SNOWE. Ms. Hecker, in response to what Admiral Collins
just said, what do you think the Coast Guard should be doing to
adjust its plan to reflect these realities? I mean, is there ever going
to be a day where it is going to stabilize, given the threats to our
homeland security and the role the Coast Guard plays? I mean,
maybe you will always have these gyrations as long as you have
an insufficient number of personnel, ships, aircraft, and so on, to
respond to whatever the threat happens to be at that moment in
time, whether it is a search and rescue or homeland security. Are
we ever going to avoid these moments in time, like in 2002, where
you are going to have huge spikes in response to homeland secu-
rity, for example in port security?
Ms. HECKER. No, you cannot, but I think that is why you build
in contingencies. And to have a plan or target levels that are as-
suming MARSEC1 in the environment that we are in now, in our
view, probably is not a useful plan for you to say that these are
the levels. I mean, there is recent guidance that went out on secu-
ritynot securityon maritime safety, basically public affairs and
community outreach should be cut back 75 percent. Is that the new
standard? Is that a new standard? The drug number. If the drug
number there is, I think, 12 percent of operational resources; well,
in 1998, it was 20 percent. So is the new standardare they going
to work with ONDCP and say our standard of activity is some-
thing?
The issue about performance targets, I totally agree with him
that these are inputs, these are not outputs. At the end of the day,
what you are really interested in is outputs. But in the fisheries
area, the interdictions are 19 percent in foreign vessels compared
to what they were in 2000. That is not a favorable performance
level.
44
So, yes, they can be a target of a certain level. The tradeoff of

what kind of impact that is and how it compares to the actuals,
that is what I think would be useful to Congress. It is now over
a year and a half since September 11th. There is a lot of Coast
Guard resource use data here and a lot of security related spikes
that continue to occur.
So I think Congress should expect more, and I think Congress
needs more to really understand the actual consequence of this new
environment and its impact on the range of missions for the Coast
Guard.
Senator SNOWE. I will turn to Senator Stevens, but, Admiral Col-
lins, I would appreciate having that kind of plan presented to the
Committee. I think it would be important to look at the actual
versus the impact. And I
Admiral COLLINS. Madam Chair, of course, we talked about this
at the recent past hearing. My staff is working through these
issues. We hope to havewe have bits and pieces of the allocation
model
Senator SNOWE. Right.
Admiral COLLINS.and we hope to refine that. We want it suc-
cinct, hard-hitting, clear. And the other piece that is terribly impor-
tant is to refine and develop performance standards associated with
homeland security. This is a new environment since 9/11. Those
performance standards are just in the formative stages
Senator SNOWE. I understand.
Admiral COLLINS.and we need a few months to mature those
performance standards. They are absolutely the key ingredient in
my mind. We have performance standards for search and rescue.
We have performance for other missions. We do not have perform-
ance standards fully vetted and fully matured for homeland secu-
rity. Once we lock those in and once we identify and mature those,
we are able to develop the model to make analysis against that
benchmark.
And we are shooting through the summer, and hopefully by late
summer, early fall, we will have a full-blown document, a model,
a process. The process may modelallocation model, exercised, and
the results of it in a 5-year time frame for GAO and your review.
That is sort of where we are, in terms of our course of action on
that.
Senator SNOWE. OK. Thank you.
I would like to welcome Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman, I cannot stay very long, be-
cause we have a funeral service for former Senator Moss over in
the Capitol.
But I am disturbed, Ms. Secretary, by those charts. There is not
one for fisheries enforcement, right?
Ms. HECKER. These are hours. These are hours of activity of all
of the key assets. So this is fisheries, and it is down about a third
since 1998. And it is corroborated by the performance targets that
they have, the one that I just mentioned, in terms of interdictions
of foreign vessels being 20 percent of what it was in 2000. The tar-
45
get for detecting foreign fishing vessels has not been met. There
are not targets for domestic fishing, but there were fewer boardings
and fewer violations in 2002 than 2000. So the activity is down,
and the results are down.
Senator STEVENS. Admiral, this is what I was worried about
when we got the request to transfer your agency to Homeland Se-
curity. I think it demonstrates that we are going to have more and
more loss of domestic use of law enforcement for our fishers, habi-
tat protection, various matters pertaining to small-boat safety be-
cause of your new location. What is your plan?
Admiral COLLINS. Senator, I think we would have this problem,
in terms of balancing missions and making tradeoffs and not hav-
ing enough capacity and capability to do the full range of our mis-
sions, whether we were in Homeland Security or not in Homeland
Security. I think it is a function of our asset base versus the de-
mand, rather than the organizational location.
Quite frankly, Secretary Ridge has been incredibly supportive of
our Coast Guards budget, and every hearing that I havetestify
that I have seen and every public statement, he continues to rein-
force his commitment to the full range of Coast Guard missions.
What it is, we are dealing with external pressure on our missions
and the demand for those. I think
Senator STEVENS. Well, are we going to have to budget so that
we give you one budget for non-homeland security and another
budget for homeland security? I can do that if we have to do it.
Admiral COLLINS. I do not thinkwell, I would prefer that not
to happen, because what happens is it takes away my prerogatives
as an operational commander to allocate resources to the highest
threat and risk at the time, which may be more fish or it may
be
Senator STEVENS. One of the
Admiral COLLINS.more migrants.
Senator STEVENS. Well, I do not know ifI have never seen that
happen, but one of the things we provided was that you would get
a fixed percentage of new assets. Are you programmed to get new
assets?
Admiral COLLINS. That was for the R&D pot, sir, the 10 percent,
and, yes, that is on course. I might just quote
Senator STEVENS. That is to be followed through, obviously, with
procurement when you get past the R&D I would hope.
Admiral COLLINS. Yes, sir. We do not have a fixed percentage of
the total homeland security pot for capital expenses. It is mostly
focusedthe law focused it on R&D. But we didso what you see
in the budget is what we get if, in fact, the Presidents budget is
passed.
On fish, let me just quote a couple of numbers, and I am refer-
ring to our budget brief document that we put out associated with
every budget year. And it is a pie diagram that shows the program
allocation of the 2004 budget based on projected allocation, mis-
sion-wise. Living marine resources, fish, in Fiscal Year 2001 was
allocated, and this is actual, $381 million, or 12 percent of the
budget. As forecasted in the 2004, living marine resources is allo-
cated 549 million, or 12 percent of the budget. Several things have
happened. The size of the pie is bigger. Our budget has gone up
46
by 30 percent over the last 3 years. The size of the pie is bigger,
and the allocation, the program allocation, of the resources.
The other comment I would make is that not all fisheries
grounds are treated the same. There are certain fisheries grounds
that we have not pulled resources back from. A case in point that
is close to home, the Bering Sea is not only an important fisheries
ground, it is a high-risk fishing ground from a search-and-rescue
perspective. We have not pulled back our deployment of cutters to
the Bering Sea. We have a one shipwe have committed a one-
ship presence in the Bering Sea. We are helicopter equipped. We
have done that, absent maybe of a couple of days here and there
as ships exchange.
Senator STEVENS. Well, respectfully, Admiral, you are talking
about half the coastline of the United States with one ship. This
area is still producing 50 percent of all the fish produced in the
United States that is consumed by the American people. I really do
not think we are providing the increase in monitoring we should
have, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to predict what
is going to happen out there. But we have
What is this I hear that somebody has raised the question about
the use of UAVs in Alaska?
Admiral COLLINS. I know that, of course, the DeepwaterInte-
grated Deepwater Solution that contract awarded, of course, to
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, last June. Part of the sys-
tem design of that integrated Deepwater system has UAVs as part
of the system design, the two types of UAVs. It has organic UAVs,
vertical takeoff UAVs, organic to the ship, tilt rotor, and then it
has a wide area surveillance UAV Global Hawk, which is built to
the least solution set as part of the overall project. Those are em-
bedded in Deepwater. So if you had a Deepwater package cutter
and UAV in Alaska that deployed in the Bering Sea, it is going to
have those.
I am not aware of any other specific unilateral action to provide
UAV to Alaska. I am not cognizant of any. The UAV program that
we have is an integral part of the Deepwater system design, which
will unfold over a number of years.
Senator STEVENS. Well, I would like to visit you about it and get
you in contact with some of the UAV people who tell us it would
be relatively simple to produce UAVs to take up some of the moni-
toring and, really, even law-enforcement patrol concepts, and also
that there are some where they could actually be used in lieu of
helicopter to drop supplies and to drop safety equipment to people
that cannot be reached by helicopter because of weather.
But it does not seem to me we are really going after the high-
tech solutions to fill in the gaps in the patrolling and the search-
and-rescue capabilities of Alaska. I would hope we would do that.
Admiral Lautenbacher, I am sorry, I have to go to this thing for
my friend. I am sad that he passed away, also. But I hope you
willI am going to submit the questions I would have asked each
one of you, and I hope that you will respond to me on those.
But my one question is about the OSCAR DYSON that is under-
going an environmental assessment, I understand, for the choice of
berthing locations for this research vessel. It has come to my atten-
tion that there is apparently some indication that some of your peo-
47
ple want to berth the OSCAR DYSON at the Coast Guard Station
rather than in a fishing area where the fishing vessels are.
This is a research vessel, and it is named after the man who
really was the spearhead for the development of the larger port at
Kodiak and was a close personal friend, and his family still lives
there in Kodiak. I would hope that that vessel will be home-ported
with the basic direction that Congress said it would be, at the Port
of Kodiak. Do you have to have an environmental assessment on
berthing when you have been directed by Congress to berth it at
a particular location?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I believe we have to, sir, but let me get
back to you, for the record, on it. And I
Senator STEVENS. I know you have to have an environmental as-
sessment whether
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.we are doing environmental assess-
ments
Senator STEVENS.whether it is
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.in accordance with the law.
Senator STEVENS. But this is in law that it should be berthed at
Kodiak.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir.
Senator STEVENS. I do not see the necessity for an environmental
assessment of where it should be berthed. I hope you will take a
look at it, because we
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir.
Senator STEVENS.we intended for it to be there at Kodiak. It
is a grand vessel, and it is an adjunct to the fishing fleet, not an
adjunct to the admirals Coast Guard. I have great admiration for
the Coast Guard, but I would hope that a vessel named after my
great friend ends up where he had such a great influence and
where it will be a great pride to the people of Kodiak.
Admiral Lautenbacher; Yes, sir, I understand.
Senator STEVENS. I am going to submit these questions, if I may,
Madam Chairman.
Senator SNOWE. Without objection, so ordered.
[The questions of Senator Stevens follows:]
Questions for Admiral Thomas H. Collins:
Question. Do you have any short-term solutions or thoughts for increasing our na-
tions maritime domain awareness?
Question. Is the Coast Guard considering or advocating the use of the various ma-
rine exchanges around the U.S. to assist in achieving greater maritime domain
awareness?
Questions for Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.:
Question. Has NOAA made a decision on what it intends to do on the proposed
Lena Point facility?
Question. Will NOAA locate the OSCAR DYSON in Downtown Kodiak as was di-
rected by Congress or 10 miles outside of town at a site near the Coast Guard sta-
tion?
Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.
Senator SNOWE. Thank you.
I want to finish up on where we left, and then I want to move
on to Admiral Lautenbacher. Ms. Hecker, do you see any type of
strategic plan emerging from the Coast Guard with respect to what
48
has been said here today and through its fiscal 2004 budget re-
quest?
Ms. HECKER. We have not seen the kind of plan that we have
been asking for. There are actually two interesting vehicles that we
would like to talk with them more about and what their strategy
is. One is the update of their GPRA strategic plan. That is obvi-
ously a plan that calls for performance targets, it calls for perform-
ance results and strategies. So that may be one vehicle. The other,
of course, is the mandate that you put in the Maritime Transpor-
tation Security Act, where there was a requirement to report to the
Congress on specific targets for all missions areas and plans to in-
crease them.
So those are two plans that I think are similar to the kinds of
things we are looking for. And because of this hearing being moved
up, we did not have all the time we really wanted to to work with
the Coast Guard and make sure that our recommendationsand
we have amplified them in this testimony. So we are going to try
to make sureI do not think it is an intent to ignore us. We have
not had the time to work together so that they can really under-
stand coming to grips with this historical level where you can see
that basically the highs are the old lows. You know, you can see
the trends that what used to be the lows in cyclical periods is now
the new high in both areas. And how does that compare to what
he is saying, Oh, we are on target to be within, you know, 95 per-
cent of the old level? I do not see it in these numbers.
Senator SNOWE. How would accelerating the Deepwater Program
have an impact both on homeland security and on the traditional
missions of the Coast Guard?
Admiral COLLINS. Is that directed to me
Senator SNOWE. Yes.
Admiral COLLINS.Madam Chair? I think it is a
Senator SNOWE. It is directed to you both.
Admiral COLLINS.I think pretty accurately portrayed in the re-
port that was just submitted to Congress where we documented
that those capabilities get much needed capabilities like network-
centric capability, better communication, better capacity, increased
capacitythey get it sooner, rather than later. And I think that,
as I recall, the number is 943,000 employment hours greater than
the 20-year plan. So you get 943,000 employment hours over the
other plan, and they are more capable hours, in addition to be ad-
ditional hours. So more capable, and additional hours. And very ca-
pable command control, surveillance type of systems that are really
the heart and soul of us getting better at our mission sets.
So I think it has everything to do with us doing better at our
missions, and it gives us capability and capacity, my two favorite
words, relative to our budget. It gives us both of those things, and
I think those are, in fact, detailed at some length in the report.
Senator SNOWE. Ms. Hecker, do you think it would even out
some of the highs and lows in these charts with respect to the
homeland security mission, but also fulfilling the Coast Guards
other traditional missions?
Ms. HECKER. By definition, it will bring more capable, more effi-
cient, assets to the fore sooner. There is no doubt that it would
have a positive effect. But the first thing is to at least get it funded
49
at the minimum. It is not even at the minimum that was projected.

So while there may be very substantial benefits
Senator SNOWE. Well
Ms. HECKER.for increasing it, the first task is to actually get
it back on schedule.
Senator SNOWE. I would agree. It is troubling, to say the least,
that we are, as you said, $200 million in the hole already two years
into the program. This would be the third year of the program, I
think, and there may be a short fall of $83 million.
Ms. HECKER. Uh-huh.
Senator SNOWE. So this level of under funding is obviously not
putting Deepwater on the right path, to say the least. I think the
Deepwater Program would help bolster and reinforce the obliga-
tions and responsibilities of the Coast Guard. It clearly does not
make sense, in the final analysis, to complete this program essen-
tially over the next 20 to 30 years. And so I think this report is
helpful in supporting our arguments about accelerating this pro-
gram. I think the need is imperative.
It is going to be a major challenge to convince them, but you are
right to get it back on track right now. But, in addition to seeing
what we can do to accelerate it, and I think this report will be
helpful in illustrating the current funding shortfall.
Admiral Lautenbacher, in looking at your budget for this last
year and looking to the future, I notice that there were significant
unobligated balances that you are using for the next years pro-
grams. Can you outline the impact of why, first of all, does NOAA
have so many unobligated balances in these various categories?
And I know either they were not distributed in a timely fashion or
they were not attractive or worthy projects, but why is there this
much in the way of unobligated balances in the NOAA budget?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. NOAA, first of all, has what we never
had in Defense, which is no-year money. So when you say it is un-
obligated, we plan to spend money. We try to, obviously, spend it
as quickly as is needed and is possible. But, in essence, we have
not been held to having it all done by September 30th on the same
type of rigor that you have in other appropriations. That has been
changed now. This year, the Appropriations Committee said, You
must do it in 2 years for our operating money and 3 years for our
construction or acquisition money. We have two kinds of money,
which is not a lot of varieties compared to the other parts of the
government.
The big issues that we have had in unobligated balances is an
increase in the amount of money that has been going to grants and
extra-government types of organizationsin other words, outside
the government. What I found when I looked at this was that we
had something like 15we went from 1200 grants almost up to
1,500 to 1,800 grants to try to get out. That was not anticipated
by our management process when II have been there for a year,
and it was not taken into account. So with the same amount of
staff, we have been asked to add a third40 percent more work-
load in trying to get money out and expended. That has had a neg-
ative effect on the whole organization, in terms of getting money
allocated, getting it out to program offices, and then getting all this
50
grant money out. I have ayou know, we have a management re-

form process in place.
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I am asking to get more people into
grants management and to meet the anticipated workload that we
have. So I
Senator SNOWE. Is it because there was a significant increase in
the number of grants? Or is it the way in which they were award-
ed? Or was it the worthiness of them?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. No, it is just
Senator SNOWE. No?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.it is just the workload. It is just
Senator SNOWE. It was just the workload?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.the number. Just the number. It is
just sheer numbers. If you look at the graphI do not have that
with me todayI can show you
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.the numbers have been going up from
somewhere down in the hundreds up to 1,500 to 1,800 grants
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.over the past three or 4 years. They
have gone up dramatically, and that is on a basisthere are lots
of reasons for that. I cannot put my finger on one of them in par-
ticular. But basically, almost a billion dollars of NOAAs budget
goes out. So we have a $3 billion budget, and we give away 900
million.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And that has been going up because of
member interest, because of congressional prerogatives
Senator SNOWE. You mean a few earmarks?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, maam? I am sorry.
Senator SNOWE. A few earmarks?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. A few earmarks.
[Laughter.]
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I am not here to complain.
Senator SNOWE. I am sure you are not.
[Laughter.]
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I am not complaining about that at all,
but I am saying that we have a workload problem. I discovered
it
Senator SNOWE. Yes.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.about 6 months ago. I am trying to
take action. I have taken action. Now, whether it works or not is
another question, but I have
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.taken action. And
Senator SNOWE. And you recognize that it is a problem?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I recognize
Senator SNOWE. All right.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.that is a problem, and I am going
to
Senator SNOWE. Yes.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.my objective, based on my training in
Defense, is we are not going to have any unobligated money.
51

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. It is going to bewe are going to have
a plan, and we are going to spend on it, and we are going to be
done by the end of the fiscal year.
Senator SNOWE. Right, because obviously it does mean that you
could potentially miss opportunities by not spending that money. I
am not encouraging spending money if it is not necessary, but, on
the other hand, if it can be utilized it should. If this happens by
default, either you cannot approve the grants and you do not have
the process or the personnel in place to do it, then that obviously
has to be addressed.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The only other comment I would like to
make on that is, that money, while it looks unobligated at the end
of the year, because of the fact that we work under a no-year
money, there are plans for that money. It was not free money. It
just did notwe did not spend it because we had no use for it;
there is a schedule and a plan to spend that money, and most of
that money has been spent in the, quote, fifth quarter. So the un-
obligated balances
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.that we showed at the end of the fis-
cal year, on September 30th, most of that is gone in that next quar-
ter, fifth quarter.
Senator SNOWE. OK. So, yes, but then ultimately it looks like
there is an increase in certain programs, but really it is not, be-
cause it is a result of some of the unobligated balances from the
previous fiscal year.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And you have to tag the money to be
ensured you understand that itand I say you generically
Senator SNOWE. OK. Right.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.understand that the money was de-
signed to go with a program that goes longer than 1 year. A lot of
the money is multi-year grants, multi-year processes. They do not
just pay for 1 years worth of effort. They pay for a grant or a con-
tract or something that goes beyond 1 years worth of effort.
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. And PAC funds are the same, when you
buy satellites. We do get funding, and it takes three or 4 years. It
is like buying a carrier in the Navy; it takes a while to buy the
pieces, and it is done with, you know, an advance, basically. It is
not fully funded up front; it is funded incrementally, but it is fund-
ed in advance.
Senator SNOWE. What is your approach to NOAA and its multi-
mission responsibilities? Are you taking an overall macro look in
developing a strategic plan, in terms of its structure and missions?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, we have. We have a new strategic
plan that is out. A part of our program review, total internal re-
view, we did beginning of last year when I took over, has instituted
a strategic management process that begins with a strategic plan.
We have gone out to all of our stakeholders across the country and
have built a strategic plan that is on the street now that includes
building themes across NOAA instead of looking at the stovepipes
in individual budget elements. It includes a programming process
that puts programs with that and then, finally, a detailed budg-
52
eting process with outcomes, measurements of success, and per-

formance measures for the individuals involved so that there is a
connection from the front-end strategy to the results that we are
able to show to you and to the taxpayers.
Senator SNOWE. The Groundfish Science Peer Review, as you
know, was released 2 weeks ago, and it presented a lot of informa-
tion that we need to look through and explore. The Peer Review
raised significant concerns about the modeling procedures used to
establish the biomass populations. Could you tell me how NOAA
intends to approach the issues raised in that report?
As you know, Senator Kennedy and I sent you a letter con-
cerning this Peer Review. We raised the idea of rebuilding flexi-
bility and looking at the entire issue of optimal fishery populations.
If we are overly optimistic or unrealistic in the types of targets that
were established and upon which the rebuilding is predicated and
it does take place, I think, fishermen and the entire fishing commu-
nity will be put in a very difficult position. We have to have a bet-
ter understanding of what the optimal population targets should
be. I think they raised that point very clearly in this report.
How do you intend to pursue this issue?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We are taking the Peer Review reports
very seriously. I might add that this is the culmination of a process
that was begun earlier this year. I went to New England. I have
talked to the fishermen.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I have talked to the people in our re-
gional science centers and our regional science center, our regional
center. We have instituted a process that is a lot more open. We
have standardized procedures. We have held investigations. We
have brought the fishermen in. We are looking to have an open
process. We have taken the science inside of National Fisheries
Service, and we have put it in a science area, and so it is not
so it cannot be accused of being connected and being a part of
something which is, you know, pushed to the benefit of manage-
ment or regulation, that it will be science for the sake of science,
and then the management process will be based on that. So we are
looking, making sure that is pure.
We asked for that Peer Review. I asked the group to go out and
do this and do the new studies and get a peer review to come in.
They are reporting to me biweekly, personally, on progress that
they are making. They are taking these reports seriously, and they
are going to look at all of the questions, comments, areas for sug-
gestion and come up with responses to every one of them. That will
be done very shortly, by the end of the month.
So we take it very seriously, and I am trying to improve both the
credibility, the openness, and the connection to the local economy
and the local fishermen so that we arrive at the best solution for
everyone.
Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that. I think that with this report
and the focus on this particular dimension of the problem, how we
approach stock assessments is critical. This gives us a window of
opportunity to substantially improve how things are done.
I think we agree that cooperative research with fishermen is es-
sential to this effort. And I would certainly want to know how we
53
can continue to ensure that we include the fishermen and the fish-
ing community in this effort so that we can expand and improve
upon the Cooperative Research Program.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have asked for more money for co-
operative research. I am a strong supporter of that program. We
will continue to push that as hard as we can.
Senator SNOWE. On the Observer Program, I noticed that the
2004 request includes an increase of $2.8 million for bycatch reduc-
tion. Part of this will go toward observers with an increase of $3
million to expand fishery observer coverage in the Northeast. I un-
derstand the court-ordered settlement in the New England Ground
Fish Litigation requires a 10 percent observer coverage. I think
this is very critical. How many observer days would it require to
achieve 10 percent coverage?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I do not have that answer off the top
of my head, but I will be honest in disclosure. Some of that 10 per-
cent coverage that we thought we could make was based on what
we thought we would get in 2003. We did receive a different num-
ber in 2003, and so right now are looking at ways to make up to
the 10 percent because there is not enough in that line right now
to meet the court coverage which we will have to meet in some
way. So we are looking at internal solutions, reprogramming or
whatever, to try to meet that level.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. So we still have a shortfall there, unfor-
tunately.
Senator SNOWE. Have you estimated how much it will cost?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. No, but I
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.but I will provide that very shortly for
you and for
Senator SNOWE. I would appreciate that. Once we move out of
the court-based management, especially in the New England
Ground Fish case, what is NOAAs long-term plan for making by-
catch observers a permanent part of the program?
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I would hope that the increment
that we are asking for, which gets added to our base program, will
be supported at that level or even a higher level. This is a down
payment on what is needed for bycatch issues. I mean, we have a
three-pronged program. We have to have better observation and
monitoring because we need to be able to tell the extent of the
problem and where the issues are geographically and by species.
And then next we need to look at the gear solutions and bring in
experts to look at solutions to it, and then we have to test it. And
so that iswe are putting the money into, you know, those three
bins to look at ways to deal with it. And this, as I say, is a down
payment to what is needed. So I would hope to see this effort ex-
panding as we gain some success in use of the observers and the
new R&D on it. It is a very important area to us.
Senator SNOWE. OK. Finally, on the ocean observation system, as
I mentioned in my opening statement, how is the development of
a national ocean observing system evolving within NOAA? Are you
planning to go ahead as you originally planned?
54
Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have had a plan. There are actually

a couple of, you know, sides to this. There is, first of all, the open
ocean, blue water ocean observing system. That system, if we can
gain the increments that we are asking for, which are relatively
modest in the climate area, we can get to 48 percent of a completed
system, which I think is pretty given the level of resources. It will
take us, at the rate we are going, to the year 2009 to reach a level
where we will have an ocean observing system, given what is in the
budget.
And the other piece that I know you are interested in is the
coastal section of this
Admiral LAUTENBACHER.which I consider the boundary of the
open ocean, and it is extremely important. We are asking for some
money to help us with improving our coastal buoys that will be
joined with things like GoMOOS and the other CaroCOOPS and
TABS and other systems, coastal observing systems, that we have
around the United States. And we are looking at ways to build that
backbone so that that system is put together with the blue water
system and completes an opena complete ocean observing system.
So there is a numberthere are paths that are coming together
that I am excited about if we can keep on track.
Senator SNOWE. OK, thank you.
Admiral Collins, I have a few questions concerning port vulner-
ability assessments. How many are included in the Administra-
tions budget request for the next fiscal year?
Admiral COLLINS. We have an $11 million recurring base,
Madam Chair, to do port-security assessments. Part of the feature
of the 2004 budget was that that $11 million was moved to the De-
partment, Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infra-
structure Protection. The same approach taken with TSA, Trans-
portation Security Administration also has money to do assess-
ments in other modes of transportation. They have been central-
ized. The fundsas part of the Presidents budget, those funds
have been centralized in the Under Secretary for Information Anal-
ysis and Infrastructure Protection. Although we remain the execu-
tive agent, if you will, of that Under Secretary to perform in the
maritime. So it is an $11 million issue. As that new Under Sec-
retary, who is still filling empty chairs as we speak, matures we
will develop the working relationship, a very collaborative, conge-
nial relation to date, on the issue, no contention. And we continue
to pursue our assessments.
At the current level, we will do 13 with the funds appropriated
through 2003, through Fiscal Year 2003. We are going to do some
internal reprogramming to provide some additional funds to do four
more. So hopefully by the end of Fiscal Year 2003, we will have 17
of 55 done.
Senator SNOWE. Could you repeat that?
Admiral COLLINS. By the end of Fiscal Year 2003, we will have
17 of the 55as you recall, Madam Chair, the target is 55 ports
of the United States. Those are the ports of the highest volume,
highest cargo, strategic import, the highest density of population,
et cetera. And again, 13 to date; hopefully, 17 by the end of this
fiscal year through some internal reprogramming.
55
One of the complicating factors is the cost per study is higher

than initially anticipated as the program first was conceived. As
you know, we have a contracted effort, we have a project office,
Coast Guard people, and a contractor doing the bulk of the legwork
on this. But it is a cost-plus contract to conduct these, and we are
probably going to average $900,000 a study unless we change the
scope significantly or begin to reduce the scope of the effort. So at
that rate, we are going to have to address a funding issue if we
hope to getnow, the terms of the Maritime Transportation Secu-
rity Act said do all these 55 within a 5-year cycle, and that would
mean, you know, I guess, 2007 would be the expectation that all
of these 55 ports would be done by 2007 if that was the 5-year
cycle.
To make a long story short, it is a money issue, and we can do
it as fast as we have money to do it.
Senator SNOWE. So how much is included in this budget request
for port-vulnerability assessments? Is it
Admiral COLLINS. It is not
Senator SNOWE.$11 million?
Admiral COLLINS. In the 2004 budget, it is not in our budget.
Senator SNOWE. At all?
Admiral COLLINS. It is in the Department of Homeland Security
budget. It is in the information analysis.
Senator SNOWE. OK. So that $11 million is in the Department of
Homeland Securitys budget request?
Admiral COLLINS. Our recurring base, via the 2004 budget
Senator SNOWE. OK.
Admiral COLLINS.it was moved to the new Under Secretarys
budget.
Senator SNOWE. You are saying it will cost $900,000 per study.
Could that vary depending on the size of the port?
Admiral COLLINS. Yes, it will. And that is an average.
Senator SNOWE. That is an average.
Admiral COLLINS. It could be a little higher or a little lower, but
that is our bestafter working through 13 of these, that is our best
projection of doing the kind of study that needs to be done to get
the information to make intelligent decisions on intervention strat-
egies.
And it may be worth noting that we have already doneeach
Captain of the Port has already conducted an initial assessment
using a port security risk-assessment tool that we developed
through our R&D center, a fairly good tool. And it provides their
first cut initial assessment is the entering argument for this follow-
on, more comprehensive study. The captain of the ports had been
using that initial assessment with the stakeholders in the port, in
the port security committees, to discuss initial interventions that
they want to engage in to enhance security.
So it is not like we are sitting on our thumbs as these things
happen. I think it has been a very, very productive partnership in
many of our ports, and the formal port-security assessment is the
final big study that will allow the captain of the port and the port
security people to work through some of their plans.
As per our regulatory effort that is moving along, we will have
an interim rule this summer, we will have a final rule next Novem-
56
ber. It will go into effect July 2004, and it will require facility
plans, vessel plans, and port security plans. One of the source docu-
ments for those plans and for the planning effort becomes this ini-
tial assessment that I mentioned. And ultimately, the refinement
is the formal assessment.
So the plans are going to be rolling out. These things are as oper-
ations in parallel, not in series. That is good news. That means
that we are making progress, we are partnering in the local ports,
taking action. So an aggressive schedule, but the formal assess-
ments themselves are funding-dependent in terms of the rapidity
by which we can do them. We can do them faster if we have more
money. You can dothe contractor can have multiple teams doing
these things.
So, again, it is a function of the recurring base that we have to
do the studies, and right now it is at $11 million.
Senator SNOWE. Well, this is hardly sufficient for where we need
to go. I believe we need to accomplish this sooner rather than later.
Admiral COLLINS. To do them faster would require, I believe, $15
million. To meet the terms of the actin other words, to do them
within a 5-year cyclewould require a base of about 15 million, as
I recall. And we can provide that for the record, the specific num-
ber. But as I recall, that was the number.
Senator SNOWE. I would appreciate having that for the record. I
believe we need to make a more aggressive effort to complete these
vulnerability assessments, given, the risks these gaping holes pose
to the security of our ports.
Public Law 10811, Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003,
appropriated $38 million of additional funds for the Coast Guard to complete the
Port Security Assessments in all tier one strategic ports. Approximately $6 million
annually will be required for Coast Guard oversight, administration, and execution
of Port Security Assessments. Additionally, an average of $1 million in contracting
fees will be required for each port security assessment to be conducted in a given
year. The MTSA requires that these assessments be updated at least every 5 years.
Admiral COLLINS. And that is one of the reasons why we are re-
programming within our own base
Admiral COLLINS.taking money out of other places to do four
additional ones in 2003. So I would agree with you 150 percent. We
want to do more than 13 by the end of this fiscal year. We hope
to do 17. And again, we are taking that from other places in order
to do them. That is the sense of urgency that I share with you, and
if I could steal it from more places, I would do it.
Senator SNOWE. Right. We will have follow-up discussions with
you regarding this, particularly in terms of what ports you prefer
to get done sooner rather than later and what is doable. I really
do think that we have to accelerate the timetable for this impor-
tant program.
Are there any initiatives in here, in the Administrations request,
to improve the Coast Guards ability to meet nuclear radioactive
threats in ports?
Admiral COLLINS. There is
Senator SNOWE.I raised this issue during our last hearing.
Admiral COLLINS.in the 2003 budget, there is funding for
equipment for our strike teams and our boarding teams for addi-
57
tional equipment. And as per our hearing of several weeks ago,

Madam Chair, I owe you a letter that details our initiatives in that
regard, and that is in the making.
Senator SNOWE. OK.
We have a vote in a few minutes, so I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to have both of you here today to discuss the Adminis-
trations budget requests for NOAA and the Coast Guard.
Ms. Hecker, thank you for your invaluable insights in helping us
to perform our oversight role better. I really appreciate all that you
have done to assist us in that effort, and I wish you well in the
future. We will be following up with you on several of the issues
that we raised here today concerning the Administrations budget
request and see what we can do to advance others, especially in
port security. I certainly want to evaluate the Coast Guard study,
regarding accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System Program,
because I believe that we have to move aggressively on that front,
as well.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS
Madame Chair, I thank you for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses for
testifying. Today, the Subcommittee will discuss the Coast Guard and National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget requests for Fiscal Year 2004.
Both agencies charged with great responsibilities, and I believe that we should allo-
cate each sufficient funding to meet it missions.
The Administrations FY 2004 Coast Guard budget request of $6.8 billion rep-
resents an increase of ten percent over last years request. This is an encouraging
sign. However, nearly 44 percent of this money is earmarked for homeland security
purposes, and the Administration has not sought a significant increase in Coast
Guard personnel levels. According the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the
President has only requested eleven more military personnel and is actually seeking
a decrease in civilian personnel from 5,209 in 2003 to 5,183 in 2004. And of the
2,200 new reservists expected to be hired by the end of 2003, nearly 90 percent will
be assigned to homeland security related positions. Although I have no doubt that
the Coast Guard is able to perform important domestic security missions, this shift
in resources ultimately translates into less money and fewer personnel dedicated to
traditional missions. To cite an example, the GAO reported last fall that fishery law
enforcement and drug interdiction patrols have fallen drastically since the Coast
Guard assumed greater homeland security responsibilities. In New England alone,
fishery patrols are down nearly 50 percent.
It is also important to note that the Coast Guard has not yet estimated the cost
of meeting its new responsibilities mandated by the Port and Maritime Security Act
we passed last fall. This includes coordinating security plans with port officials and
local law enforcement, providing detailed vulnerability assessments, and estab-
lishing a maritime intelligence system. Given that the Coast Guard has stated that
the private sector will have to spend $4.4 billion to comply with the act, we can only
assume that it will be a substantial amount.
As Ive stated before, I am confident that the Coast Guard can meet its security
missions. However, we cannot let environmental protection, search and rescue, drug
interdiction and other missions fall by the wayside. Ive supported raising the Coast
Guards personnel level to 50,000, and I support a larger budget. If the Coast Guard
is to play an integral role in homeland security, we must make sure the agency has
the resources it needs to fulfill all its missions, not just those dictated by national
security concerns.
As for NOAAs budget, I was pleased to see the $152 million proposed increase,
but I have three primary areas of concern that I believe need to be addressed. The
first is fisheries management. The Administrations budget request includes a total
of $732 million, a slight increase over the FY 2003 appropriated amount of $729
million. However, a number of important funding priorities need additional re-
sources in order to improve science, management, enforcement and safety. For ex-
ample, there is little or no funding for bycatch reduction and capacity reduction
when bycatch remains a problem in many fisheries, when federal law requires that
fishery managers count and cap bycatch, and when capacity reduction is key to
building sustainable fisheries in communities from Alaska to New England to the
Gulf.
The second area is climate. In 2001, the Bush Administration announced a U.S.
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) headed by the Secretary of Commerce.
That effort and the on-going United States Global Research Program (USGCRP)
were then subsumed by the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which is
headed by the Secretary of Commerce. So weve had a lot of organizational shuffling,
but its not at all clear that were making any progress on the science. The adminis-
trations draft strategic plan for the CCSP was criticized this month by a National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel as unfocused and in need of substantial revision.
The NAS called the Administrations climate change funding requests for FY04 in-
(59)
60
adequate and noted that CCRI activities appeared to be funded at the expense of
USGCRP activities, providing little new support for climate research. In addition,
the plan ignores the requirement of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 that
the Administration submit a scientific assessment to Congress every four years. The
last National Assessment, released in 2000, outlined potential societal, environ-
mental, and economic impacts of various scenarios of climate change that roughly
mirror the adverse consequences outlined by the Third Assessment of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was favorably reviewed by the
NAS in a report issued in 2001. Given the primary role announced for NOAA in
climate science, the $295.6 million NOAA FY 2004 proposal for climate change, re-
search, observations and services still appears to be only a small proportion of the
over $1.7 billion in proposed climate funding.
My third area of concern is for the recapitalization of the NOAA fleet in order
to meet NOAA missions. NOAA requires ship operations to support diverse activi-
ties, including mapping and charting, fishery stock assessments, climate and global
change research, ocean exploration, and marine incident investigations. In view of
the events of September 11 and with increasing demands on Coast Guard vessels
and resources, the value of the NOAA fleet in performing these missions is even
more pronounced.
NOAA currently meets its ship operation requirements by maintaining an in-
house fleet of vessels, which will be increasing to 16 this year; contracting hydro-
graphic services; and utilizing the University National Oceanographic Laboratory
System (UNOLS) fleet. The FY 2004 agency budget request includes $18.1 million
for operations and maintenance for the FAIRWEATHER, a hydrographic survey ves-
sel, and $497,000 to increase the strength of the NOAA Corps by 10 officers to staff
an additional active ship. The request, however, does not set forth a plan for recapi-
talizing the fleet to meet new demands and delays the additional $50 million for
procurement of the second fishery research vessel (FRV) to replace the 39-year old
ALBATROSS IV.
I look forward to hearing more about these issues and the budgets for NOAA and
the Coast Guard in todays hearing. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. I know
that there are a great many people in my home State of Oregon who are very inter-
ested in what the panel has to say today and what this means for the future of our
coastal economies and our domestic defenses.
It was only a few short years ago that the State of Oregon earned accolades as
one of the most livable areas in the country. Today, the state leads the nation in
both unemployment and hunger. And while times across the country have been dif-
ficult, many in our coastal and upstream communities have been dealt a double
blow as annual harvests shrink to meet federal catch guidelines for over-capitalized
stocks and federal investment in fisheries programs continues to trail the necessary
levels.
As you know, Congress enacted the Mitchell Act in 1938 to supplement salmon
populations impacted by federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. Today, about
70 percent of all salmon and steelhead harvested are produced by hatcheries, sup-
porting over 10,000 sport, commercial, and tribal fishing-related jobs. Unfortunately,
a decade of near-level funding has slowly gutted the budget for the program, leading
to the closure of several hatcheries in Oregon and Washington and deferred mainte-
nance at others.
I look forward to hearing from the panel how the Administration plans to move
forward to restore this program as well as provide funding and support for a num-
ber of other programs vital to out coastal and upstream economies.
Last month, Congress and the Administration took a huge step toward offering
some needed relief to our coast by passing and signing into law the West Coast
Groundfish Capacity Reduction program, and I am anxious to hear from the agency
its plans for implementation of the buyback program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding todays hearing, and thank you to all
the members of the panel today. I look forward to working with all of you as we
begin this new budget cycle.
61
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD
PSA COMPLETION SCHEDULE

Port Security Assessments (PSA) have been completed at 13 of the 55 port com-
plexes to date. This includes 5 accomplished by the Defense Threat Reduction Agen-
cy (DTRA) between August 1999 and February 2002.
Baltimore, MD
Apra Harbor, Guam
Honolulu, HI
Charleston, SC
Savannah, GA
The remaining 8 were started after September 11, 2001. The PSA process can be
divided into three distinct phases: research/pre-assessment, on-site assessment, and
report writing. The table below shows the PSA timelines, along with the expected
delivery dates for PSA reports still in production:
Report
Port Research/Pre-Assessment On-Site Assessment Delivery
(6) Boston, MA 4 Aug20 Aug 02 21 Aug7 Sep 02 13 Jan 03

(7) Portland, ME 4 Aug20 Aug 02 21 Aug7 Sep 02 17 Mar 03
(8) Corpus Christi, TX 11 Aug27 Aug 02 28 Aug13 Sep 02 24 Feb 03
(9) San Diego, CA 11 Aug27 Aug 02 28 Aug13 Sep 02 3 Feb 03
(10) Port Arthur and 2 Sep8 Oct 02 9 Oct26 Oct 02 7 Apr 03*
Beaumont, TX
(11) Lake Charles, LA 2 Sep8 Oct 02 9 Oct26 Oct 02 7 Apr 03
(12) Portland, OR and 2 Sep8 Oct 02 16 Oct1 Nov 02 28 Apr 03*
Vancouver, WA
(13) Detroit, MI 2 Sep8 Oct 02 16 Oct1 Nov 02 19 May 03
* Note: One report will encompass assessment for multiple ports.
The FY04 budget consolidates funding under Information Analysis & Infrastruc-
ture Protection (IAIP) within the Department of Homeland Security to provide co-
ordinated and consistent vulnerability assessment efforts across all critical infra-
structure.
The Coast Guard and IAIP are developing a coordinated plan to ensure con-
sistent and effective program management in FY04 and beyond. We must also
ensure alignment with the MTSA.
At the current scope and funding levels, PSAs in 55 ports will not be complete
until 2009lessons learned from the first assessments are being used to re-scope
the current assessments.
Below is a breakdown of Coast Guard resource employment hours in each of our
mission areas from pre-September 11, 2001 to the projected levels for FY04.
62
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Certification of Non-receipt of Federal FundsPursuant to the requirements
of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve Association has not received any federal grant
or contract during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
Introduction
Thank you Madame Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to submit the Fleet Reserve Associations views on the FY 2004
Coast Guard budget.
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is a Congressionally Chartered, non-profit
organization, representing the interests of U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast
Guard personnel with regard to pay, health care and other benefits.
With 135,000 members, the FRA is the oldest and largest Association rep-
resenting enlisted members of the Sea Services whether on active duty, in the Re-
serves, or retired. In addition to its extensive legislative program, the Association
sponsors annual scholarship and patriotic essay competitions, and recognition pro-
grams honoring the Coast Guard Enlisted Persons and Recruiters of the Year, the
Navy Sailors and Recruiters of the Year and the Marine Corps Recruiters and Drill
Instructors of the Year.
Quality of life programs are critically important to sustaining military readiness
and fighting the War on Terrorism. As it has for many years, the United States
Coast Guard serves with distinction as the fifth branch of our Nations Armed
Forces and as an integral component ensuring our Nations security.
Thanks to the heroic efforts of many Coast Guard personnel in the aftermath of
the 9/11/01, the American people have an increased awareness of, and appreciation
for the Coast Guards multi-faceted and demanding mission. FRA believes this is
long over due.
Before addressing specific issues, the Association wishes to thank Congress for its
tremendous support for pay and benefit improvements enacted during the 107th
Congress. Across the board and targeted pay increases, higher housing allowances,
reform of the PCS process and increased funding for health care are significant im-
provements and perceived as important recognition of the service and sacrifice of
the men and women serving in the Coast Guard, and those whove served in the
past.
The Association notes the significant progress toward ensuring Coast Guard par-
ity with all pay and benefits provided to DoD services personnel in recent years and
restates it commitment to this goal.
heck7.eps
63
Pay and Benefit Parity
The Fleet Reserve Association appreciates and thanks the Administration and
Congress for continued support for the pay and entitlements of Coast Guard per-
sonnel. These include increases in base pay, target pay raises for senior enlisted
personnel and some officer grades and annual housing allowance increases. (BAH).
The FY 2004 Budget supports an average military pay raise of 4.1 percent with
pay levels ranging from 2 percent for E1s to 6.25 percent for E9s. The majority
of members will receive an increase of 3.7 percent and out of pocket housing costs
will be reduced from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in keeping with a multi-year plan
to reduce the average out of pocket expense to zero by 2006.
The Budget also fully funds all pay and entitlements for Coast Guard personnel
and reflects continuing strong support for benefit parity with the Department of De-
fense.
The Association is extremely disappointed that the Administration is proposing to
cap the pay of NOAA and USPHS officers at 2 percent for FY 2004. FRA strongly
objects to this disparate treatment of these members of the uniformed services and
urges you to intercede in their behalf with colleagues on the appropriate oversight
committees to halt this plan and ensure pay comparability for these personnel.
Recruiting and End Strength
The Coast Guard is in a period of large personnel and mission growth. The service
continues to balance mission requirements against workforce strength and asset
availability to ensure a safe operational tempo is maintained and missions are com-
pleted.
FRA strongly supports recently authorized increased end strengths and appre-
ciates the adequate funding for same in the FY 2004 Budget. This is especially im-
portant given its broad and demanding mission requirements related to its key posi-
tion in the new Department of Homeland Security. The budget authorizes 1,788
military and 188 civilian positions and includes funding for six Maritime Safety and
Security Teams, 53 Sea Marshals, two Port Security Units, and new Coast Guard
Stations in Boston and Washington, DC. Adequate funding is also included for the
Search and Rescue (SAR) Program and to allow the stations to meet readiness re-
quirements with watch standers maintaining a maximum 68-hour workweek.
Recruiting, training and deploying a workforce with the skills and experience re-
quired to carry out the Coast Guards many missions is a formidable challenge. The
overall experience level of the workforce decreased since 9/11/01 and during this
large growth period it will require a few years to come back to the levels before that
date.
Enlisted workforce retention is the best it has been since 1994 having increased
by 2.1 percent since FY 2000. This significantly helped increase the overall strength
and experience of the workforce. Increased opportunities for advancement, improved
sea pay and selected reenlistment bonuses contributed to these high rates.
The Coast Guard also met its active duty recruiting goal in FY 2002 and is on
target to meet it again in FY 2003. Consequently, the service actually had to slow
recruiting for enlisted members this year due to the higher than expected retention
levels.
Reserve recruiting fell slightly short of the FY 2002 goal but is on target to meet
it for FY 2003. The FY 2004 budget includes funding to fully train, support and sus-
tain the Coast Guards Selected Reserve Force as an integral part of Team Coast
Guard with growth to 10,000 personnel (up from 9,000 in FY 2003). FRA strongly
supports this increase because adequate training is essential to ensuring military
readiness. Reservists maintain qualifications and important skill sets to support
contingency operations as well as augment the active component.
The Coast Guard training system is operating effectively at maximum level in
order to process the growing number of trainees. Additional contract instructors
have been hired at the training centers and temporary classrooms accommodate day
and night classes to increase capacity and efficiency.
The Administrations FY 2004 Budget fully supports all recruiting initiatives and
incentives. This robust recruiting system coupled with Coast Guard enlistment bo-
nuses has ensured a steady flow of recruits entering the service. The Coast Guard
also opened new recruiting offices to target diversity rich communities.
Health Care
FRA continues to work with Congress and DoD to ensure full funding of the De-
fense Health Budget to meet readiness needs and deliver services, through both the
direct care and purchased care systems, for all uniformed services beneficiaries, re-
gardless of age, status and location. The Association strongly supports TRICARE
64
improvements recently enacted for active duty, Reserve and retired personnel and
their families.
Oversight of the Defense Health Budget is essential to avoid a return to the
chronic under funding of recent years that led to execution shortfalls, shortchanging
of the direct care system, and reliance on annual emergency supplemental funding
requests. Even though supplemental appropriations were not needed last year, FRA
is concerned that the current funding level only maintains the status quo. Address-
ing TRICARE provider shortfalls will require additional funding.
Active duty members are automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime. Reservists
activated for 30 days or more are entitled to the same healthcare benefit as active
duty personnel and their family members are entitled to TRICARE Extra and
Standard on the first day of the military sponsors active duty if orders are for more
than 30 days. Coast Guard retirees may access care through Coast Guard
Healthcare System on a space available basis if they are not enrolled in TRICARE
Prime or TRICARE Senior (in which case they are automatically enrolled in
TRICARE Extra or Standard).
Access to care is the number one concern expressed by our membership and this
is especially challenging for Coast Guard personnel assigned to duty in areas not
served by military treatment facilities (MTFs). Some beneficiaries report that there
are providers not willing to accept new TRICARE Standard patients. Areas most af-
fected by this are:
Alaska where there is a continuous struggle to get providers to participate and
accept assignment. FRA notes that the TRICARE AK office provides great help
in addressing the issue and in solving some of the balance billing issues. Valdez,
Cordova and other remote locations are affected the most.
In Humboldt Bay/County, California (AIRSTA/Group Humboldt Bay)there is
an extremely limited pool of participating providers with a growing population
of active duty service members and dependents.
At Novato, California, and other Bay Area locations (Pacific Strike Team/
TRACEN Petaluma/ISC Alameda) Prime providers are leaving the network con-
tributing to beneficiaries having a hard time locating replacements. No hos-
pitals accept TRICARE Prime patients in Marin County and there is only one
laboratory and few radiology facilities available in the area.
The Santa Barbara, California, situation is similar to Novato and Marin Coun-
ty.
In areas away from MTFs, access can be especially challenging. Providers do not
like to take TRICARE patients mainly due to the low reimbursement rates. In the
locations where TRICARE Prime is present, a trend is developing whereby providers
are leaving the network. This not only affects active duty service members and their
dependents but retirees and their dependents.
The message sent by The TRICARE Management Activity selling the three
TRICARE options (Prime, Extra or Standard) only applies to those fortunate to live
near an MTF that has an established network. These members have choices. If as-
signed to a high cost or remote/semi-remote area where Prime is not available, the
only option is Standard. In addition, it is unfair for Coast Guard personnel to have
to absorb the higher costs associated with health and dental care, including
orthodontics in assignment areas. In reality there is no uniform benefit at this time
since the three TRICARE options are not available to all beneficiaries nationwide.
FRA also believes further distinction must be made between TRICARE Standard
and Prime in evaluation of the TRICARE program. Our members report increased
problems and dissatisfaction with the Standard benefit.
The Presidents FY 2004 budget seeks to repeal a protection for beneficiaries that
Congress recently enacted into law. A persistent problem with TRICARE Standard
has been that beneficiaries who need certain kinds of care must check with a local
military facility before getting the care in the private sector. TRICARE Standard
will pay the claim for civilian care in such instances only if the local military facility
issues a non-availability statement (NAS) indicating the care cant be provided at
the military facility.
FRA is also concerned about a flaw in the provider reimbursement formula which
contributes to this situation. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) cut the
Medicare fees by 5.4 percent in the past two years. This reduction coupled with pro-
viders increasing overhead expenses and rapidly rising medical liability costs, seri-
ously jeopardize providers willingness to participate in TRICARE and Medicare.
Provider groups say that TRICARE is the lowest paying program they deal with,
and often results in the most administrative problems.
65
Housing
FRA is concerned about Coast Guard housing challenges that include adequate
appropriations for new construction and/or maintenance. While the objective is to
ensure that all members have access to quality housing, whether for single per-
sonnel or personnel with families, the Commandants people-oriented direction ac-
knowledges the importance of quality of life, and the important role of housing in
obtaining and retaining a productive workforce.
During recent testimony presented to this distinguished Subcommittee, Master
Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Frank Welch, stated that Coast Guard per-
sonnel and their families continue to face a lack of affordable and adequate housing
in many of our assignment areas.
The following locations are deemed Critical Housing Areas (CHAs) for Coast
Guard personnel:
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (NC176)
Montauk, New York (NY218)
Cape May, New Jersey (NJ198)
Abbeville, Louisiana (ZZ553)
Port OConnor, Texas (ZZ583)
Rockland, Maine (ME141)
Carrabelle, Florida (ZZ630)
Marathon/Islamorada, Florida (FL069)
Plus any area currently designated as a CHA by the U.S. Navy.
In the absence of adequate government owned housing, the Coast Guard offers ac-
companied members several choices including seeking rental partnership agree-
ments with landlords (where possible) and/or establishing Coast Guard Leased
Housing.
This situation is exacerbated by assignment areas that are typically in or near
remote, high-cost resort areas along our coasts. Areas where no government owned
housing is available include Puerto Rico, Alaska, Washington State, the Outer
Banks off the Eastern Shore, and Santa Barbara, California. Unaccompanied per-
sonnel housing problems affecting habitability exist at, but are not limited to, bar-
racks in Alameda, California, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Activities New York, and
New Orleans, Louisiana.
While housing allowances have increased, the availability of quality, affordable
housing within a reasonable distance to work remains a challengeespecially for
junior enlisted personnel. In certain areas, hyper increases in utility costs may also
financially impact accompanied members residing on the economy and paying their
own utilities. This has occurred for personnel in California.
Housing privatization initiatives are helping ease this challenge for the DoD Serv-
ices and the Coast Guards authority to participate in these ventures was recently
renewed, with passage of the Port and Maritime Security Act (U.S. Coast Guard Au-
thorization) last year.
Child Care
Having available and accessible childcare is a very important quality of life issue
for Coast Guard personnel and their families and the Administrations FY 2004
Budget supports an expansion of this service.
While comparing Coast Guard childcare parity with the Department of Defense
is difficultthe childcare needs of Coast Guard personnel and their families are no
different than for DoD services personnel. Approximately 640 children are in Coast
Guard childcare facilities and FRA believes that this program should be adequately
funded to ensure parity.
Education Benefits
FRA strongly supports increased funding for education benefits. For FY 2003, tui-
tion assistance is paid at 100 percent up to $250 per semester hour with an annual
cap of $4,500 for Coast Guard personnel. This puts the service on a par with the
Department of Defense.
With regard to the MGIB program, participants may receive a full-time student
rate of $985/month or more, depending on whether they contribute to an increased
benefit program. Recent enhancements are positive steps to improving this program,
however FRA believes MGIB benefits should be benchmarked to the average cost
of a four-year public college education.
In addition, FRA believes active duty career service members who entered service
during the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) era (19771985) and de-
clined to take VEAP should have an opportunity to enroll in the MGIB. There are
about 115,000 armed forces personnel in this situation. Many actually were discour-
66
aged from signing up for VEAP as it was acknowledged to be a woefully inferior
program compared to the Vietnam-era GI Bill and the subsequent MGIB that began
on 1 July 1985. As the backbone of todays force, these senior leaders are critical
to the success of ongoing and pending operations. As they complete their careers,
they should be afforded at least one opportunity to say yes or no to veterans
education benefits under the MGIB.
The Coast Guard adjusts discretionary funding to best address its particular
needs. The Presidents FY 2004 budget supports the Coast Guard to be fully com-
petitive with DoD education benefits.
Conclusion
The Association again appreciates the opportunity to present its recommendations
on the Coast Guards FY 2004 Budget and is grateful to this Distinguished Sub-
committee for its great work in support of the men and women serving in our Na-
tions fifth Armed Force.
The broad range of services and support provided by the Coast Guard are not
fully understood and recognized by the American public. FRA is working to broaden
awareness of the incredible work done by Coast Guard men and women in support
of the services many missions and our national security. Hopefully the services well
deserved prominence within the new Department of Homeland Security will help in-
crease recognition of the Coast Guards tremendous service to our great Nation.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS
Rescue 21Environmental/Local Concerns
Question. I am pleased to see the Administrations request recommends full fund-
ing for the Rescue 21 program to modernize the Coast Guards National Distress
Systemalso known as the Maritime 911 system. As you begin installation in the
Mid-Atlantic States are you encountering environmental and local concerns con-
cerning tower placement? If so, to what extent? How is this impacting your plans?
Will these concerns lead to less than optimal tower placement thereby resulting in
a degradation in system performance?
Answer. The Coast Guard is committed to maximizing the use of existing infra-
structure through collocation of antenna and ancillary equipment on existing gov-
ernment or commercially owned towers where possible. This approach minimizes
new tower construction, which is often viewed as undesirable by the general public
and environmental stakeholders. In areas where existing towers are not available,
each proposed new tower is assessed for potential environmental impacts in accord-
ance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable environ-
mental statutes and Executive Orders prior to proceeding with construction. The
majority of these statutes involve public participation.
To date, the Coast Guard has encountered resistance over the construction of only
one tower. Local community members from the Borough of Manasquan, New Jersey
presented safety and economic related concerns regarding replacement of an exist-
ing tower with a new, taller tower in their borough. The Rescue 21 Project Team
worked closely with the community to address their concerns and ensured they were
appropriately considered in the decision making process. The tower is currently
under construction with an expected completion date of May 2003. The remaining
six tower sites within the mid-Atlantic region (2 new construction and 4 collocations
of equipment on existing towers) are proceeding without complaint.
Finally, the Coast Guard is partnering with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
a key environmental stakeholder in the oversight of construction of telecommuni-
cations towers, to minimize Rescue 21 environmental impact. The Coast Guard and
FWS have co-developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that contains
tower construction guidelines that will establish protocol for compliance with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Coast Guard anticipates the signing of this MOU
by the end of May 2003.
Deepwater Deficit and Impacts
Question. The original Deepwater plan called for $500 million a year for twenty
years in Fiscal Year 1998 dollars. For Fiscal Year 2004 that amount would be al-
most $550 million. The Presidents request is $500 million which would under fund
Deepwater by $50 million or approximately 10 percent. With the Deepwater pro-
gram being underfunded in its first two years, how far behind scheduled is it? How
much of a deficit is there? If the Coast Guard receives $500 million in Deepwater
funding for Fiscal Year 2004 as requested, which of the Deepwater initiatives will
67
be delayed or significantly modified? How will this impact the out years? If Deep-
water program funding remains at $500 million per year in appropriated dollars for
the life of the program, the Coast Guard will undoubtedly be forced to extend the
time line. Is the Coast Guard developing a plan to account for this reduced level
of funding? What impact will this have on the Coast Guards ability to carry out
its homeland security responsibilities as well as its traditional missions?
Answer. The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) contracting strategy was chosen
based on its flexibility. The Acquisition Plan states that the strategy gives the
Coast Guard the flexibility to choose precise quantities identified in the contractors
implementation plan or make adjustments depending on budget variances. Funding
below notional annual planning funding levels will increase the time and cost nec-
essary to fully implement the Deepwater solution.
Industry teams used a notional annual planning funding stream of $300 million
in Fiscal Year 2002 and $500 million from Fiscal Year 2003 in Fiscal Year 1998 dol-
lars until project completion. In addition to the Request For Proposal (RFP) notional
annual funding level, Deepwater estimated $30 million per year for government pro-
gram management to administer the program. At this notional funding level, it is
estimated that Deepwater would be completed in 24 years. The difference between
planned Deepwater funding and Fiscal Years 2002, 2003 appropriated funding/Fis-
cal Year 2004 requested funding results in a deficit of $202M.
In Fiscal Year 2004, the Coast Guard delayed the purchase of 3 Vertical Take Off/
Land Unmanned Air Vehicles (VUAV) and reduced investment in legacy asset
sustainment. VUAVs are still part of the overall IDS acquisition, and will be consid-
ered in future funding requests.
An extended IDS implementation schedule will delay the introduction of new as-
sets, and require that legacy assets remain in operation an extended period.
SAR and the DOT Audit
Question. In October 2001, the Department of Transportation Inspector General
released its audit of the Coast Guards small boat stations that revealed significant
readiness concerns. I understand the Coast Guard has made strides over the past
two years in remedying these readiness problems by adding additional personnel,
better training, and better use of new technologies. Where is the Coast Guard in
rectifying the search and rescue readiness problems reported by the DOT IG last
year? Will the increase in personnel in the Administrations request enable the
Coast Guard to achieve its goal of a 68-hour workweek at small-boat stations and
meet the 12-hour watch standard at command centers? If not, what additional re-
sources are needed and when do you expect to meet these requirements?
Answer. Although Search and Rescue (SAR) is a top priority, Coast Guard small
boat stations are multi-mission in nature and perform nearly all Coast Guard mis-
sions on a routine basis so their staffing must reflect their multi-mission workload.
Towards this goal, substantial human resources have been added to multi-mission
stations toward attainment of the 68-hour workweek standard, including 224 full-
time positions (FTP) in Fiscal Year 2002, 150 FTP in Fiscal Year 2003 and the 179
FTP requested in Fiscal Year 2004. Those numbers include 113 FTP for Support
Petty Officers at 98 stations nation-wide to relieve administrative workloads from
operational personnel.
Quantitative measurement efforts (workload surveys) were conducted in the sum-
mer of 2002 to monitor the workweek of Station personnel. 2002 results showed that
the workweek has decreased slightly (3.18 percent) since 1998. However, due to
transfer cycles and fill rate, the full impact of Fiscal Year 2002 billet additions has
not yet been realized. The next survey is scheduled for Fall 2003.
The Stand-the-Watch initiative provided 87 FTP in Fiscal Year 2002, 30 FTP in
Fiscal Year 2003 and requests an additional 71 FTP in Fiscal Year 2004. This will
provide the minimum number of people needed to implement a 12-hour watch at
all but a few command centers. The Stand-the-Watch staffing requests were based
upon the Center for Naval Analyses 5:1 ratio per watch position. Other research,
including an ongoing study by the Coast Guard Research & Development Center,
indicates additional staffing may be needed to fully account for the impact of per-
sonnel accession, assignment, training, qualification and other personnel issues on
the ability to fully maintain a 12-hour watch rotation. If the results of the current
Research & Development Center study indicate that additional personnel are re-
quired, then additional funding will be requested to ensure that no individual works
more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period.
We continue to assess the extent of the significant maritime Homeland Security
workload on our stations and command center personnel and the increased re-
sources required to achieve the standards in the post 9/11 environment to determine
our needs in Fiscal Year 2005 and beyond.
68
MTSA Funding for Private Sector
Question. I understand the Coast Guard estimated the private sector costs for
compliance with the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act to
be $4.4 billion, with annual costs of $500 million.
Is this $4.4 billion figure accurate? If so, what is it based on?
How much is the Administration requesting for maritime and port security
grants for Fiscal Year 2004?
Which agencies or directorates will be managing these funds?
While I understand these funds will not directly be administered by the Coast
Guard, what role does the Coast Guard play in awarding these grants?
Can you explain how awarding of these grants will be coordinated with Port Se-
curity Assessments being conducted by the Coast Guard as part of your ongoing
assessments?
Answer. The $4.4 billion figure was a preliminary analysis published in the Fed-
eral Register on December 30, 2002 and represented the cost of implementing MTSA
for facilities. As part of the regulatory process, the Coast Guard will consider public
input generated by the Federal Register notice and the ensuing public meetings.
The cost estimates for the regulated industry will be revised and published with the
interim rule in June.
The Coast Guards Fiscal Year 2004 budget does not include funding for maritime
or port security grants.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Maritime Administration
(MARAD), and the Coast Guard have been working together to coordinate the re-
view and award of grant funds.
The Coast Guard is continuing to work cooperatively with TSA and MARAD in
receipt and review of the grant proposals. The Coast Guard and MARAD field rep-
resentatives jointly conducted field level review and provided award recommenda-
tions to the national selection board comprised of senior personnel from the Coast
Guard, TSA, and MARAD. Additionally, the Coast Guard provided input at the na-
tional level in development of the grant proposal selection plan and associated selec-
tion criteria for the two grant categories, assessments as well as physical and oper-
ational security enhancements.
The Coast Guard provides information on the port security assessments completed
by the Coast Guard to ensure awarded grants are not funding duplicate assess-
ments. The Coast Guard will continue to work with TSA and MARAD in deter-
mining future grant selection criteria by providing national trends in security
vulnerabilities and participating in the review of proposals.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

Catch-up Funding Adjustments
Question. Admiral Collins, if the Deepwater funding profile had followed the origi-
nal plan of 500 million dollars annually in Fiscal Year 1998 dollars, the Fiscal Year
2005 level would be less than 600 million in 2005 dollars. However, the Coast
Guards recent report on accelerating the Deepwater acquisition shows that the pro-
gram would require 871 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2005 and 888 million dollars
in Fiscal Year 2006 to catch up to the original plan to keep the program on schedule
for a 20-year acquisition period. Fiscal Year 2007 funding would return to the origi-
nally forecasted level of 608 million dollars. Will the Coast Guards new Capital
Plan reflect this catch-up adjustment?
Answer. The Coast Guards Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Investment Plan reflects out-
year funding for the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS), the National Distress and
the Response System Modernization program to ensure full deployment by 2006,
and funding for other essential Coast Guard Capital Acquisitions within OMBs
budgetary projections.
The Fiscal Year 2005 Capital Investment Plan will be updated to reflect any new
or revised planning assumption.
Coast Guard vs. DoD Budget Process
Question. Admiral Collins, I understand that the Coast Guards budget develop-
ment process differs from the DoD services in that the Coast Guard does not first
develop a requirements list before proceeding to developing a budget request. I be-
lieve the Coast Guards process disadvantages your Service by blurring the dif-
ference between requirements and budget. Would you please provide a response for
69
the record on whether this different budget development system is based on statute,
and would you consider moving to a system similar to that used by the DoD serv-
ices?
Answer. The Coast Guard uses a rigorous planning process to develop our budg-
etary priorities. The Coast Guards planning process considers numerous factors
such as return on investment, economies of scale, risk assessments and performance
analysis to select the most critical projects for budget request inputs.
In accordance with Department of Homeland Security and OMB direction, the
Coast Guard identifies its out-year requirements in the Capital Investment Plan
(CIP). This is a five-year capital asset management tool that is vetted through the
Administration and contained in our Congressional budget submission.
Under statute in 10 USCS 153, the Department of Defense submits an un-
funded priorities listing annually to Congress after their formal budget submission.
While the Coast Guard does not submit this type of list to Congress, we routinely
engage the Department and OMB to identify our highest resource priorities.
Homeporting in Pascagoula, MS
Question. Admiral Collins, the increasing importance of homeland security and
national security missions for the Deepwater programs new cutters will require im-
proved interoperability with the U.S. Navy. Would the co-location of some of these
cutters and U.S. Navy ships at the same homeports, such as Naval Station
Pascagoula, MS, provide the potential for improved interoperability? Would the
homeporting of some of these cutters at Naval Station Pascagoula, next-door to
where they will be built, provide the potential for reduced maintenance costs?
Answer. Interoperability with the U.S. Navy is a key component of the Integrated
Deepwater System (IDS) and the Coast Guards efforts to meet the increasing de-
mands of our homeland and national security missions. Partnering with the Depart-
ment of Defense and fellow Department of Homeland Security agencies is vital to
defending and securing our country.
Interoperability between Coast Guard and U.S. Navy vessels is linked to compat-
ibility of equipment, command and control systems, weapons management systems,
training, and doctrine. Co-location with the U.S. Navy does offer potential for im-
proved interoperability and reduced costs based on common systems and logistics
support, (e.g., availability of Navy training facilities and technical representatives).
Other factors, such as co-location with similar class Coast Guard cutters and a cut-
ters proximity to its operational area, will also improve interoperability and reduce
overall costs. All these factors regarding homeporting and co-location opportunities
will be assessed as IDS matures.
Coast Guard maintenance modeling and expenditures suggest that a vessels
homeport relative to the proximity of the shipyard where constructed has no appre-
ciable impact on reduced maintenance costs. Deepwaters lifecycle cost savings is
predicated upon homeport clustering of similar class hulls to leverage savings in
depot level maintenance, training, and crewing efficiency.
Grants to Gulf Ports
Question. Admiral Collins, last year, 92 million dollars in port security grants
were awarded to various ports. Not a single Gulf Coast port between New Orleans
and Tampa received a grant, although several requests from those ports were sub-
mitted. The Coast Guard is working with the Maritime Administration (MARAD)
and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to award another 105 million
dollars in port security grants this year. Will you ensure that the ports in this re-
gion receive appropriate assistance in understanding the grant process and are not
overlooked in this years round of grants? Of course, I am particularly interested in
the ports of Pascagoula and Gulfport, both among the top 20 of U.S. ports in cargo
movements.
Answer. The preliminary analysis of the current round of grants shows that
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) received 1,100 port security grant
proposals totaling nearly $1 billion. A selection board consisting of senior personnel
from the Coast Guard, TSA, and Maritime Administration (MARAD) will base
awards on consideration of the most urgent needs from a maritime homeland secu-
rity perspective.
The ports of Pascagoula and Gulfport are located within the Marine Safety Office
Mobiles area of responsibility. Twelve-port security grant proposals totaling $4.8
million were submitted to the Marine Safety Office Mobile from applicants in the
ports of Pascagoula and Gulfport in this round of submissions. All applications, in-
cluding those from the ports of Pascagoula and Gulfport, will receive full and careful
consideration.
70
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO
Resources for Homeland Security
Question. The Coast Guard has tremendous new responsibilities for ports, water-
ways and coastal security. Yet only 25 percent of the operating budget is aimed at
this mission. Is this sufficient? Where would you apply additional resources if they
were given to you, with respect to your homeland security missions?
Answer. The Coast Guards Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) mis-
sion was redefined as a result of the increased post-9/11 Homeland Security respon-
sibilities. PWCS is not, however, a new mission; nor is it the Coast Guards only
Homeland Security mission. Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act defines
Homeland Security missions as follows:
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS)
Drug interdiction
Migrant interdiction
Defense readiness
Other law enforcement
Thus, while the Fiscal Year 2004 budget includes approximately $1.2 billion for
the PWCS mission, a larger view of the request shows that approximately $2.1 bil-
lion, or 44 percent, of the Operating Expenses budget is attributable to Homeland
Security missions. Due to the unique multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard, any
funding applied toward Homeland Security missions also contributes to successes
with Non-Homeland Security missions.
Initiatives within the Fiscal Year 2004 budget will bolster the Coast Guards
homeland security capabilities and capacities, which will mitigate the impacts of fu-
ture elevations of the HSAS threat level on the Coast Guard resource allocation
across all missions.
Maritime Transportation Security Act Budget
Question. I am very concerned about implementation of the port security billthe
Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year, we passed the most significant
legislation ever directed at coordinating security policy at our seaports. The bill cre-
ates some significant new responsibilities for the Coast Guard.
Does the budget include any specific item to address these new responsibilities?
Has the Coast Guard estimated the costs on the Coast Guard of implementing
the MTSA? If so, what are those estimates?
If the budget does not include any new money for this additional responsibility,
where will the resources be taken from?
Answer. The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was passed in Novem-
ber 2002. We have substantial requirements for personnel and funding in Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2004 to fully implement new MTSA responsibilities. However, the
Coast Guards Fiscal Year 2004 budget does include over $140M in new initiatives
related to the MTSA such as 6 Maritime Safety and Security Teams, intelligence
and information enhancements, and 58 Sea Marshals.
The Coast Guard has diverted base resources and deferred other regulatory
projects in Fiscal Year 2003 to ensure the regulatory project remains on track. An
interim rule is expected to be published in July this year.
The Coast Guard estimates the largest cost of new Coast Guard responsibilities
required by MTSA will be in Fiscal Year 2004 as the plans required by the rule-
making process are developed and submitted to the Coast Guard for approval and
actual compliance enforcement begins. The most important part of security plans is
their implementation by owners/operators. MTSA is one of our top priorities, and
we will continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security to identify
needed resources to implement and enforce this important legislation.
Rescue 21 Coverage
Question. A key long-term planning project is upgrading the National Distress
and Response System (NDS), or Rescue 21 system. A major concern about this sys-
tem is the existence of 88 dead zonesi.e., gaps in coveragealong the coast of
the United States, including a number of spots in Massachusetts, Maine and South
Carolina.
Is it true that the overall budget plan for this project would result in less than
100 percent geographical coverage?
In what states will the gaps be located?
71
Answer. The Coast Guards deployment strategy for Rescue 21 is not an attempt
to close 100 percent of the existing gaps in coverage, but instead a comprehensive
re-evaluation of all tower locations to provide maximum communications coverage
throughout the coastal zone of the United States, Guam and Puerto Rico. Rather
than taking a patchwork approach focusing on filling in existing communication
gaps, the Coast Guard is constructing a modernized system in a sequential manner,
proceeding from one region to the next adjacent region, taking advantage of existing
infrastructure. This approach will reduce costs, expedite deployment of the new sys-
tem, and maximize communications coverage.
The Rescue 21 predicted coverage is 98 percent throughout the coastal zone
(shoreline to 20 NM off shore) of the United States including Hawaii, Guam, Puerto
Rico and the Juneau, Valdez, and Kodiak regions of Alaska. The anticipated cov-
erage is based upon General Dynamic Decision Systems theoretical coverage model
for the reception of a signal from a 1-watt transmission from a height of two (2)
meters above sea level. This is a conservative standard since most mariners cur-
rently operate 525-watt transmitters and contemporary hand-helds are typically 3
5 watts. The actual Rescue 21 system communications coverage is dependent upon
the location of the remote communication sites (tower location and height) and final
testing of the system following installation.
The 98 percent coverage goal is intended to account for communication variables
such as atmospheric conditions, electronic background noise, physical objects, and
other factors that adversely affect radio propagation. In contrast, typical public safe-
ty wireless systems (police, fire, emergency medical personnel, and others respond-
ing to emergency situations) are designed to provide 9597 percent coverage.
Once Rescue 21 has been installed in each region, regional performance tests will
be completed to verify coverage performance requirements within the region.
Reducing the Work Hours at Stations
Question. Crews working at search and rescue stations continue to work hours
that exceed Coast Guard guidelines. The recently passed Coast Guard authorization
bill provides strong direction to the Coast Guard to bring these hours within Coast
Guard guidelines. How is this being addressed?
Answer. Although Search and Rescue (SAR) is a top priority, Coast Guard small
boat stations are multi-mission in nature and perform nearly all Coast Guard mis-
sions on a routine basis so their staffing must reflect their multi-mission workload.
Towards this goal, substantial human resources have been added to multi-mission
stations toward attainment of the 68-hour workweek, including 224 full-time posi-
tions (FTP) in Fiscal Year 2002, 150 FTP in Fiscal Year 2003 and the 179 FTP re-
quested in Fiscal Year 2004. Those numbers include 113 FTP for Support Petty Offi-
cers at 98 stations nation-wide to relieve administrative workloads from operational
personnel. We continue to assess the extent of the significant maritime Homeland
Security workload on our stations and the increased resources required to achieve
the 68-hour workweek standard in the post 9/11 environment.
Quantitative measurement efforts (workload surveys) were conducted in the sum-
mer of 2002 to monitor the workweek of Station personnel. 2002 results showed that
the workweek has decreased slightly (3.18 percent) since 1998. However, due to
transfer cycles, the full impact of Fiscal Year 2002 billet additions has not yet been
realized. The next survey is scheduled for the Fall 2003.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

Resources for Traditional Non-Security Missions
Question. Despite an increase in the budget request for all missions, it is unclear
that the Coast Guard will in fact provide adequate resources for traditional non-se-
curity missions. In fact, resources for several key missions such as fisheries enforce-
ment are still below pre-9/11 levels, and trends over the last several years indicate
a continued decline for many such missions. Although the budget request would in-
crease operating expenses for law enforcement, the actual number of resource hours
dedicated to these missions has suffered since 9/11, and according to GAO analysis,
are projected to still be approximately 5 percent below pre-9/11 levels.
Which aspects of fisheries enforcement are suffering losses due to the decreased
resource hours being dedicated to these missions? What regions are most im-
pacted?
72
Do you plan to bring the level of fisheries enforcement back to its 9/11 levels
in the future, or to some other level? What is your strategy for getting to those
levels?
A communication sent to all of the Coast Guards Atlantic operations last fall
gave instructions to cease certain traditional activities, or to shift the burden
of traditional Coast Guard duties to state and local entities. Is this not an indi-
cation that some of the Coast Guards responsibilities need to move to other en-
tities?
Answer. The Coast Guard allocates resource effort to fisheries enforcement at suf-
ficient levels to ensure compliance with management regulations for the recovery
and maintenance of healthy fish stocks. Regionally, New England and the Pacific
Northwest have been the most impacted due to cutter and aircraft-increased port
security operations. Partnership efforts such as Coast Guard/State enforcement op-
erations and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) have enabled the Coast Guard to al-
locate enforcement resources more efficiently across all missions to ensure adequate
compliance and effective Coast Guard law enforcement boardings.
Coast Guard innovative enforcement and partnering with NOAA and the States
is meant as a short-term strategy to ensure adequate fisheries enforcement. The
long-term strategy remains to increase capacity and capability for the Coast Guard
to meet, and balance, all mission demands. The Presidents Fiscal Year 2004 Coast
Guard Budget will provide the needed resources to return our non-maritime home-
land security (MHS) to near pre-September 11, 2001 levels.
Coast Guard responsibilities should not be moved to other entities. The multi-mis-
sion nature of the Coast Guard and the synergies between its missions make the
Coast Guard the right agency to retain its existing mission portfolio. Maritime secu-
rity and maritime safety are two sides of the same coin. Due to the unique multi-
mission nature of the Coast Guard, any funding applied toward Homeland Security
missions also contributes to successes with Non-Homeland Security missions. As the
Coast Guard continues to adjust its resources to meet its mission balancing chal-
lenges, it is also good stewardship to use all available assets in response to the na-
tions highest priorities. The Coast Guard values the partnerships it has with other
Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and will look to them for contin-
ued support as we carry out our maritime safety and security missions. This support
is now more critical than ever, as the Coast Guard continues to grow capacity and
capability to meet the demands of all missions.
Mission Balance Comprehensive Blueprint
Question. In testimony before the Commerce Committee and the Appropriations
Committee, the Coast Guard has explained that they have a three year plan to
return the Coast Guard to normalcy, with Fiscal Year 2004 being the second year.
However, the Coast Guard has not developed such a plan, but has instead developed
a plan only for the maritime security missions. GAO raises this issue as a major
shortcoming in the Coast Guards ability to achieve the new normalcy.
Admiral Collins, the Coast Guard has testified previously before this Committee
that you have a three-year strategic plan for returning to the new normal
not just for the new security missions, but also for traditional missions. The
2002 Coast Guard authorization bill also calls for the Coast Guard to develop
multi-year targets for all missions. Yet we have not seen such a plan. What is
the status of this plan?
In fact, I am concerned that the Coast Guard has developed a plan for maritime
security issues, but not for the traditional missions. Why is that?
What is the new normal for traditional missions, such as fisheries enforce-
ment? Is it returning to resource expenditures at the pre-9/11 level, or a dif-
ferent level?
Answer. The Coast Guard is pursuing a multi-year resource effort to perform an
enhanced level of Maritime Homeland Security (MHS) while sustaining our non-
MHS missions near pre-9/11 levels. Although we do have capacity, capability and
operational tempo challenges to sustaining mission balance, the Coast Guard will
continue to emphasize all of our missions. At the end of the day, we are focused
on performance-based results and not only resource hours. The perspective through
the performance lens illustrates that our non-Homeland Security missions are not
suffering. The Fiscal Year 2003 Report/Fiscal Year 2004 Budget in Brief (BIB) pro-
vides documentation of the Coast Guards high performance levels across our full
mission spectrum. For example, in Fiscal Year 2002 we seized the third highest co-
caine total in our history, we interdicted or deterred illegal immigration by sea at
a rate of 88.3 percent which exceeded our target of 87 percent, we reduced the vol-
73
ume of oil spilled per million gallons shipped to 0.6 gallons which was well below
our target of 2.5 gallons, and we continued to reduce the number of maritime work-
er fatalities to 4.3 per 10,000 workers which is below our target of 8.7.
A necessary first step is base-lining our maritime Homeland Security (MHS) re-
quirements to help balance our other missions. To accomplish this, the Coast Guard
has focused on a Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP) for implementing the maritime
component of the Presidents National Strategy for Homeland Security. Various
components of our Maritime Security Strategy Deployment Plan are under develop-
ment, with the first component to be completed in April/May of 2003.
These MHS requirements will roll into a comprehensive blueprint to achieve over-
all mission balance. This blueprint will consider budgetary inputs, resource activity
levels, multi-year mission targets and mission performance outcomes. Our existing
strategic planning process and performance plans will serve as the cornerstone of
an integrated approach emphasizing three general areas of effort: Preserving Non-
MHS missions, Conducting MHS missions, and maintaining military readiness to
conduct Defense Operations when tasked. The planning process provides the ability
to detail the difference between pre and post-9/11 levels of effort and performance
in missions. We anticipate completion of the comprehensive blueprint for mission
balancing by the end of Fiscal Year 2003.
The multi-mission resources requested in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget are critical
to overall mission balancing efforts and to the sustainment of the Coast Guards
high standards of operational excellence across all mission areas. It is important to
note that every Homeland Security dollar directed to the Coast Guard will con-
tribute to a careful balance between our safety and security missions (including fish-
eries law enforcement), both of which must be properly resourced for effective mis-
sion accomplishment. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget reflects steady progress in our
multi-year resource effort to meet Americas future maritime safety and security
needs. This new funding will positively impact our performance in all assigned MHS
and non-MHS goals.
Multiple Deepwater Funding Issues
Question. The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) program is the largest asset re-
capitalization in the Coast Guards history; the latest projections indicate that it will
cost approximately $17 billion over 2030 years. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget re-
quest is for $500 million, which is less than the estimated $587 million necessary
to keep the IDS budget plan on its original track of $500 million annuallyin 1998
dollars. The Coast Guard delivered a report requested by Congress on the prospects
for speeding up the Deepwater acquisition project on March 11, 2003.
Admiral Collins, the Coast Guard has just finished its report on the prospects
for speeding up the Deepwater acquisition project. The report states that accel-
erating the Deepwater project to ten years will result in increased acquisition
costs of $4.0 billion over the Presidents 5-year Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Invest-
ment Plan for Deepwater, yet will save $4.0 billion over the build-out of the
system. Could you explain these figures and the assumptions used to reach
them?
If the project were to be accelerated, what annual appropriation would be need-
ed?
Your report notes serious constraints on the ability to train and hire adequate
personnel to bring Deepwater assets on line in an accelerated time-frame. How
would Coast Guard propose to overcome those problems?
The original plan for Deepwater relied on appropriations of $500 million per
year, in 1998 dollars. Yet while an estimated $587 million in current dollars is
need to keep Deepwater on track, the Administration only requested $500 mil-
lion in current dollars in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. If the Adminis-
tration is not even requesting an adequate amount of funding to keep the IDS
program on track, how do you expect to reach the goals of this program?
Answer. The Coast Guard, on March 7, 2003, released a Report to Congress on
the feasibility of accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) to 10 years.
This report provides the best estimate of funding levels to accelerate IDS. Below are
the estimated capital acquisition funding levels needed to build out IDS in 10 years.
These figures reflect then-year dollars and include making up for previous short-
falls.
The Coast Guards Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for Deepwater
is also provided below and reflects out-year funding for the Integrated Deepwater
System (IDS) within OMBs certified budgetary projections. The difference between
74
the total acquisition costs and the Fiscal Year 2004 5-year CIP for Fiscal Years
20042008 results in an increase of $4.0 billion.
As discussed in the March 7, 2003 Report to Congress on the Feasibility of Accel-
erating the Integrated Deepwater System, a total Capital Acquisition savings of ap-
proximately $4 billion (then-year dollars) is projected under the 10-year acceleration
plan over the build out of the system as compared to 20-year plan.
FY 10-Year ($M) FY04 CIP ($M)
02 320
03 478
04 500 500
05 1,892 530
06 1,663 618
07 1,506 669
08 1,472 680
09 1,428
10 1,226
11 988
Temporary increases will be necessary to meet training and crew requirements as-
sociated with the accelerated plan. An outsourcing strategy for providing training,
successfully used to meet present workforce surge requirements, is a viable and pre-
ferred alternative to meet this demand. Another alternative involves expanding cur-
rent infrastructure by building new facilities and training new instructors at the ex-
isting training centers. This alternative is less desirable due to the temporary dura-
tion of the Deepwater training surge. Careful study will be required so that the
most efficient and effective overall course of action for accomplishing out-year re-
quired training is pursued. But this challenge can be successfully met with proper
planning and sufficient resources.
The IDS contracting strategy was chosen based on its flexibility. The Acquisition
Plan states that the strategy gives the Coast Guard the flexibility to choose precise
quantities identified in the contractors implementation plan or make adjustments
depending on budget variances. Funding below notional annual planning funding
levels will increase the time and cost necessary to fully implement the Deepwater
solution.
An extended IDS implementation schedule will delay the introduction of new as-
sets, and require legacy assets remain in operation an extended period.
Increased OPTEMPO Impact on Personnel and Retention
Question. The Coast Guard has had serious problems retaining trained personnel.
However, it is unclear that the Coast Guard has the capacity to take on sufficient
new recruits, including providing basic resources, such as housing. In addition, oper-
ating tempo is increasing, and the Coast Guards own guidelines for maximum shift
hours are not being met.
As resources are diverted from traditional missions to homeland security, and
resources now are also being sent to the Gulf, are operating tempos at an all-
time high?
How is that impacting personnel, and their work schedules?
What steps are needed to ensure that the Coast Guard has sufficient, trained
personnel for all of its missions?
What steps is the Coast Guard taking to improve retention of personnel?
Answer. Maritime Homeland Security (MHS) has always been a traditional mis-
sion for the Coast Guard, however, since September 11, 2001, we have placed more
emphasis on it to reflect current national priorities. The Coast Guards current oper-
ating tempo (OPTEMPO) for all cutters, aircraft and boats (ashore) is slightly high-
er than pre-September 11, 2001 levels, and this is largely attributable to small boat
operations from shore units. Coast Guard personnel are currently handling the in-
creased challenges in a very positive fashion, as shown through improved retention
and high morale.
Our multi-mission stations are starting to feel the positive impact of recent re-
source initiatives in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. Quantitative measurement efforts
(workload surveys) were conducted in the summer of 2002 to monitor the workweek
of Station personnel. The 2002 results showed that the average workweek has de-
75
creased slightly (3.18 percent) since 1998. However, due to transfer cycles, the full
impacts of Fiscal Year 2002 billet additions have not yet been realized. The next
survey is scheduled for the Fall 2003. We anticipate the new personnel included in
the enacted Fiscal Year 2003 budget will continue to decrease the average work-
week for personnel assigned to multi-mission stations.
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget provides increased capability and capacity for our
shore-based small boat fleet in order to perform our MHS mission and sustain our
non-MHS missions to near pre-September 11, 2001 levels. The Fiscal Year 2004
budget also requests to increase the active, reserve and civilian workforces, which
will help provide sufficient personnel and surge capacity for all Coast Guard mis-
sions.
The Coast Guard will continue to employ innovative recruiting and hiring initia-
tives, maximize training capabilities, and focus on improving retention. Improve-
ments to retention are attributed to numerous initiatives, including; increases to
basic pay and basic allowance for housing (BAH), selective Re-enlistment Bonuses
for targeted ratings, the Coast Guard Applicant College Fund, Critical Skills Reten-
tion Bonus and increased tuition assistance. Civilian personnel incentives also in-
clude pay raises, Relocation Bonuses, and Retention Bonuses.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN B. BREAUX TO

Mission Balance
Question. Admiral, despite your significant budget increases in the last few years,
the Coast Guard has increasing mission responsibilities and you are deploying as-
sets overseas (detailed list attached), which will undoubtedly stress the organiza-
tion. How and when will you balance all of your mission levels?
Answer. A necessary first step is base-lining our maritime Homeland Security
(MHS) requirements to help balance our other missions. To accomplish this, the
Coast Guard has focused on a Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP) for implementing
the maritime component of the Presidents National Strategy for Homeland Secu-
rity. Various components of our Maritime Security Strategy Deployment Plan are
under development, with the first component to be completed in April/May of 2003.
all mission balance. Our existing strategic planning process and performance plans
will serve as the cornerstone of an integrated approach emphasizing three general
areas of effort: Preserving Non-MHS missions, Conducting MHS missions, and
maintaining military readiness to conduct Defense Operations when tasked. The
planning process provides the ability to detail the difference between pre- and post-
9/11 levels of effort and performance in missions. We anticipate completion of this
comprehensive blueprint for mission balancing by the end of Fiscal Year 2003.
The multi-mission resources requested in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget are critical
to overall mission balancing efforts and to the sustainment of the Coast Guards
high standards of operational excellence across all mission areas. It is important to
note that every Homeland Security dollar directed to the Coast Guard will con-
tribute to a careful balance between our safety and security missions, both of which
must be properly resourced for effective mission accomplishment. The Fiscal Year
2004 budget reflects steady progress in our multi-year resource effort to meet Amer-
icas future maritime safety and security needs. This new funding will positively im-
pact our performance in all assigned MHS and non-MHS goals.
Illegal Waterborne Entries
Question. During the month of February, there was a series of illegal waterborne
entries into the United States. These included, but were not limited to 23 West Afri-
can stowaways being discovered aboard a container ship in Camden, NJ and a
Cuban Coast Guard patrol boat with armed personnel entering our waters and dock-
ing in downtown Key West. And, just last week 20 Cubans and their dog were taken
into custody in Biscayne National Park. Given these recent intrusions, how would
you strengthen Coast Guard and other agency capabilities in this extremely vulner-
able area?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to maintain a strong migrant interdiction
posture, however, migrant landings on U.S. shores are unfortunately unavoidable
and will continue to occur. The Coast Guard is working closely with other Govern-
ment agencies including the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bu-
reau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure efforts are coordinated.
From our existing funds, we are continuing to develop non-lethal tools for compel-
ling compliance by migrant vessels. Through the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request,
76
the Coast Guard will gain additional interdiction resources with improved sensor ca-
pabilities, improved intelligence resources throughout the organization and greater
surveillance capabilities of the maritime approach lanes. These budget initiatives
are designed to improve migrant interdiction success rates.
Impact of Fiscal Year 2004 Funding
Question. $500 million is requested for Integrated Deepwater System (IDS). Fund-
ing for the IDS program has shifted over the last few years. The original budget
plan for this project relied on annual funding levels of $500 millionin 1998 dollars.
In order to meet that level in 2003 dollars, $587 million would need to be appro-
priated in Fiscal Year 2004, but the Administration has only requested $500 million
for IDS in Fiscal Year 2004. Please discuss how this inconsistent funding level will
impact the overall program.
Answer. With a funding profile of $500 million annually in appropriated-year dol-
lars, it would take at least 27 years to acquire the assets included in the Integrated
Deepwater System (IDS) implementation plan, compared to an estimated 24 years
with $500 million in inflated dollars. Although the overall acquisition cost to build
out the system is relatively similar in Fiscal Year 1998 dollars, a longer implemen-
tation schedule dictates legacy assets remain in operation for an extended period
and well beyond most of their programmed service lives. As such, more capital im-
provement funding will be needed to sustain legacy assets and less funding will be
available for acquiring new assets, further extending the acquisition time line past
27 years and increasing the total costs to fully implement the IDS plan.
Future Mission Requirements
Question. As you well know, the Coast Guard experienced chronic underfunding
in the late 90s and at the turn of the century. The Congress has recognized this
shortfall and provided you significant increases in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 and
now we see a robust budget request in Fiscal Year 2004. I suspect that since you
have published your Maritime Homeland Security Strategy, you have a much better
idea of your mission requirements. Please address your future needs in this context.
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget reflects steady progress in our multi-year
resource effort to meet Americas future maritime safety and security needs. This
new funding will positively impact our performance in all assigned maritime home-
land security (MHS) and non-MHS performance goals. The multi-mission resources
requested in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget are critical to overall mission balancing
efforts and to the sustainment of the Coast Guards high standards of operational
excellence across all mission areas. It is important to note that every Homeland Se-
curity dollar directed to the Coast Guard will contribute to a careful balance be-
tween our safety and security missions, both of which must be properly resourced
for effective mission accomplishment.
To gauge future resource requirements, the Coast Guard has focused on a Stra-
tegic Deployment Plan (SDP) for implementing the maritime component of the
Presidents National Strategy for Homeland Security. A necessary first step is base
lining our MHS requirements to help balance our other missions. Various compo-
nents of our Maritime Security Strategy Deployment Plan are under development,
with the first component to be completed in April/May of 2003, and the full plan
by the end of Fiscal Year 2003.
all mission balance. Our existing strategic planning process and performance plans
will serve as the cornerstone of an integrated approach emphasizing three general
areas of effort: Preserving non-MHS missions, Conducting MHS missions, and main-
taining military readiness to conduct Defense Operations when tasked. The plan-
ning process provides the ability to detail the difference between pre and post-9/11
levels of effort and performance in missions. The overall effort will enable us to pur-
sue a responsible and appropriate multi-year resource effort to accomplish all of our
important missions.
How IDS Meets Challenges and Exceeds Legacy Capabilities
Question. As you recall, during the February 12, 2003 hearing on transition of the
Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Home-
land Security, I commented on my recent visit aboard the Cutter LEGARE. I saw
first hand that your legacy operational assets are aging and in many cases unable
to meet your current mission requirements. Given your recent resource shortfalls
and acknowledgment of the massive responsibilities that the nation asks of you,
please explain how the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) will help mitigate these
challenges. Please explain what new capabilities the Integrated Deepwater System
(IDS) program will provide over your legacy assets.
77
Answer. The current Coast Guard infrastructure is expensive to maintain and
manpower intensive to operate. Since 1998, assets have been retired, some equip-
ment has failed, and mission requirements have increased. Additionally, the Coast
Guard continues to experience asset degradation and spiraling maintenance costs
that impact asset reliability and availability. The Integrated Deepwater System
(IDS) is critical in providing the capability and capacity needed for Maritime Home-
land Security (MHS) and non-MHS missions.
IDS is an integral part of the Coast Guards answer to meet Americas future
maritime needs. This was true before 9/11, and is even truer today. The Homeland
Security Act and Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 mandate the Coast
Guard increase security measures while safeguarding its other missions as the lead
federal agency for MHS, and IDS is key to every element of the Coast Guards MHS
strategy.
MHS necessitates pushing Americas maritime borders outward away from ports
and waterways so that layered, maritime operations can be implemented. IDS will
provide a network-centric system of Command, Control, Communications, Com-
puters, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) that is critical for en-
hancing maritime domain awareness. Through common systems and technologies,
common operational concepts, and a common logistics base, new and modernized
IDS assets and equipment will provide increased capabilities, multi-mission readi-
ness and availability, and interoperability with the Department of Defense and
other Department of Homeland Security agencies. Specific examples of increased ca-
pability include:
System-wide access to Common Operational Picture (COP) increasing oper-
ational commanders situational awareness and ability to respond, plan and al-
locate resources.
C4ISR enhancements that promote the sharing of information with other na-
tional intelligence agencies, improving national ability to respond to emerging
threats.
C4ISR enhancements provide classified data and communications links for in-
creased data flow and shared COP among operations units, including Head-
quarters, District and Area Command Centers.
State-of-the-market sensors improving detection and classification capabilities,
increasing the range and ability to operate in all weather conditions.
High Altitude Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) provides long-range surveillance
with real-time data link.
Unmanned and manned aircraft solution delivers 80 percent more flight hours
than the legacy system.
National Security/Offshore Patrol Cutters with Multi-mission Cutter Helicopter,
two Vertical UAVs and a Long Range Interceptor boat provide Over-The-Hori-
zon prosecution capabilities and significantly improved area surveillance capac-
ity than legacy cutter and HH65 helicopter package.
IDS solution provides 9 more Fast Response Cutters (FRC) than the current
number of legacy 110-foot patrol boats.
123 Patrol Boat provide 700 additional annual operating hours and the FRC
an additional 1,200 operating hours per hull than the present 110 patrol boat
with planned annual operating level of 1,800 hours per hull.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR.
Question 1. The Snowe-Breaux Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 authorized $15 million in 1999, $18.25 million in 2000, and $19
million in 2001. Unfortunately, the previous Administration never requested the
fully authorized amounts. I understand that for Fiscal Year 2004, funding for Harm-
ful Algal Bloom activities, roughly $17 million, is part of the base budget. Can you
confirm that NOAA is requesting a full $17 million on harmful algal bloom and hy-
poxia research?
Answer. Approximately $15 million is being requested by NOAA for harmful algal
bloom and hypoxia research. The funds associated with these activities are included
in the FY04 budget request in the base funds line item of the program in which
the research efforts are supported.
NOAA-supported research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia is organized in
the following categories. Changes from previous budget structures and planned
FY04 funding levels are noted.
78
Pfiesteria and HAB Rapid Response (Ocean Assessment Program (OAP))
Funds are now included under (OAP) base funds
Planned FY04 funding levels ($3.9)
Harmful Algal Blooms (OAP)
Funds are now included under (OAP) base funds
Pfiesteria/Toxins Research (Oceanic and Coastal Research)
Funds are now included under Oceanic and Coastal Research base funds
ECOHAB (Coastal Ocean Program (COP))
Funds are now included under (COP) base funds
Hypoxia (COP)
Funds are now included under (COP) base funds
Question 1a. Please tell me, in as much detail as you can, what projects this fund-
ing would support next year.
Answer. Harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research is implemented primarily
through NOAAs National Ocean Service as mandated through Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA). Based on previous funding ef-
forts, NOAA typically supports projects in the following five spending categories and
plans to continue these activities in FY04. Additional details about individual
projects can be provided upon request.
HABHRCA Category 1authorized funds to carry out research and assessment
activities, including procurement of necessary research equipment, for NOS and
NOAA Fisheries research laboratories.
These funds support HAB research and equipment in NOAA laboratories through
intramural efforts focusing on developing and deploying new-generation toxin detec-
tion methods, assessments of toxin production, and characterization of toxicity in
fish and mammals. The adaptation and use of remote sensing and molecular meth-
ods adapted from medical science to monitor, model, and analyze the ecology of toxic
marine species, and their relationship to changes in the environment is also sup-
ported.
HABHRCA Category 2authorized funds to carry out the Ecology and Oceanog-
raphy of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) project under the Coastal Ocean Pro-
gram established under section 201(c) of Public Law 102567.
These funds support NOAAs contribution to ECOHAB, a competitive, peer-re-
viewed research program. This interagency research program, administered by
NOAAs Coastal Ocean Program, is improving our understanding of HAB species
and their relationships to surrounding oceanographic environments. ECOHAB re-
gional studies focus on the particular algal species impacting large coastal ocean
areas like the Gulf of Maine and Gulf of Mexico. These large-scale projects examine
environmental and ecological factors that control the biological and physical proc-
esses regulating the development, transport, and dissipation of harmful algal blooms
and develop models to ultimately forecast bloom development and toxicity. The first
ever HAB forecast capability, now operational in Florida, was developed and imple-
mented through ECOHAB. Targeted studies are also providing critical insight into
the specific biological and physical processes that regulate the occurrence of HABs,
how HAB toxins are transferred through coastal food webs and their biochemical
model of action. In addition, ECOHAB projects focusing on biological control agents
such as clays or viruses may lead to useful methods to controls HABs in the future.
HABHRCA Category 3authorized funds to carry out a peer-reviewed research
program on management measures that can be taken to prevent, reduce, control,
and mitigate harmful algal blooms.
Projects initiated through the ECOHAB and the Monitoring and Event Response
for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) programs are leading to results directly appli-
cable to this funding category. Some of these projects are developing the capacity
to mitigate the impacts of HABs though the development of early warning moni-
toring sensors/systems or models capable of forecasting bloom initiation and trans-
port. While ECOHAB supports research testing various control mechanisms, there
will likely be several policy and public perception hurdles to overcome before apply-
ing results from this research. Until these hurdles are overcome, increased emphasis
is needed on developing HAB models and improved monitoring techniques to sup-
port HAB forecasting.
79
HABHRCA Category 4authorized funds to carry out federal and state annual
monitoring and analysis activities for harmful algal blooms
These funds support the MERHAB program, a competitive, peer-reviewed re-
search program administered by NOAAs Coastal Ocean Program. MERHAB
projects test new technologies for algal cell and toxin detection and facilitates their
adaptation into existing state and tribal coastal monitoring programs. MERHAB
also supports event-response capabilities within affected regions to ensure trained
and equipped personnel are able to mobilize quickly, conduct appropriate sampling
and testing, and communicate effectively during HAB events. Current regional mon-
itoring projects focus on HABs in the Pacific Northwest, and the Gulf coast of Flor-
ida and Texas. A new 5-year project in the Lower Great Lakes has been started this
year with the goal to develop an integrated alert system to monitor and detect toxic
cyanobacteria blooms in the lower Great Lakes: Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Lake
Champlain. This project will directly benefit coastal managers in States bordering
the Great Lakes. These studies demonstrate that, with HAB monitoring capabilities,
managers are better able to mitigate the impacts of HAB to coastal resources and
economies through the proactive detection of potential HAB problems combined with
robust event-response capabilities.
HABHRCA Category 5authorized funds for research and monitoring on hypoxia.
These funds support the COPs competitive, peer-reviewed research program in
the northern Gulf of Mexico to monitor and model the distribution and dynamics
of the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia. These studies are intended to better
define relationships among nutrient loads, nutrient ratios, phytoplankton species
composition, carbon (i.e. organic material) flux, and oxygen dynamics. These studies
will improve modeling efforts to predict changes in oxygen budgets and severity of
hypoxia under altered riverine input scenarios. Studies examining the effects of hy-
poxia on ecologically and economically important species are also being supported.
Question 2. The Harmful Algal Bloom Task Forces action plan to eliminate the
Gulf of Mexico dead zone outlined a program that would cost approximately $1 bil-
lion a year. It largely focuses on regional agricultural activities to limit nutrient
runoff. To what extent has NOAA incorporated the Task Forces recommendations
on the dead zone into their programs and activities?
Answer. NOAA has incorporated the Task Forces recommendations into their pro-
grams and activities by expanding the number and scope of NOAA funded moni-
toring and research programs in the Gulf of Mexico. These activities are specifically
recommended in action items No. 3 and No. 4 on page 13 from the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Action item No. 3 requests the development of a research strategy to coordinate
and promote the necessary research and modeling efforts to reduce uncertainties re-
garding the sources and effects and geochemical processes for hypoxia in the Gulf.
NOAA has been funding studies based on the research priorities identified in the
Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico produced by the
National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environmental and Natural
Resources. These studies have focused on the ecological effects of hypoxia and on
developing a predictive modeling framework for hypoxia. For example, NOAA is sup-
porting studies examining the impact of the hypoxia zone on bottom species/fishery
resources and funds studies to develop bio-physical models to predict the extent of
the hypoxic zone under various environmental and/or management scenarios. NOAA
was also a key organizer and participant in an interagency workshop to develop a
coordinated research plan so future research efforts can be designed, managed, and
funded within a coordinated, multi-disciplinary framework.
Action item No. 4 requests the development of expanded long-term monitoring
programs for the hypoxic zone. NOAA is addressing this need through the funding
and expansion of several ongoing monitoring studies that aim to map the hypoxia
zone at higher spatial and temporal resolutions than previous studies. These new
studies expand the ongoing monitoring programs by adding additional ship
transects through the hypoxia zone and the addition of fixed mooring stations.
These vital studies will help to determine how the hypoxic zone varies when nutri-
ent inputs, freshwater inputs, or the physical forcing to the northern Gulf of Mexico
change due to climatic and year-to-year variability.
Question 2a. Does action in this area simply require more funding, or does NOAA
need to make other institutional changes to implement these recommendations?
Answer. NOAA has focused on action items No. 3 and No. 4 because these activi-
ties have the greatest overlap with the expertise, jurisdiction, and mission of the
agency. NOAA feels that institutional changes are not necessary to implement the
recommendations currently being addressed by the agency. Within current funding
80
levels, many important physical and biological processes affecting the hypoxia zone
in the Gulf are being addressed by existing programs.
Question 2b. If only a portion of this dead zone funding were provided, would
NOAA implement any aspects of the action plan?
Answer. NOAA will continue to support, using available funding sources, imple-
mentation of the action plan specifically in the areas of research, monitoring, and
modeling. The development of a comprehensive program linking these focus areas
of NOAA with those of other research, monitoring, and modeling activities occurring
in the watershed are a high priority.
Question 2c. How would they determine priority areas and issues for action?
Answer. The priority areas and issues for action would be determined from those
outlined in the recently completed interagency workshop report titled A Science
Strategy to Support Management Decisions Related to Hypoxia in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico and Excess Nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin. This report was
authored by the monitoring, modeling and research workgroup of the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico watershed nutrients Task Force. NOAA would focus on the
high priority areas identified in the sections on Gulf monitoring and reporting, Gulf
modeling and research, and Gulf social and economic research.
Question 2d. When it comes to implementing action plans like this, what do you
think is the most effective way to integrate regional and local stakeholders?
Answer. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxia issue is a complex, regional problem which
crosses many state boundaries. This creates many problems for management of nu-
trient inputs to the basin especially since the consequences of the excess nutrients
are far removed from the source. NOAA has been involved with the Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia issue since the first monitoring efforts were begun in 1985. Based on these
experiences, the most effective way to integrate regional and local stakeholders in
the implementation of the action plans is to establish the sub-basin committees
called for in the Action Plan. These state-led groups will bring together state and
federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, academics, and the private sector
to identify ways to reduce nutrient loads and reach the targets set in the Action
Plan. In addition, the existing intergovernmental work groups for science, point and
non-point source control, and watershed restoration, and budget, organized under
the Task Force, have been effective in bringing together all stakeholders on these
complex issues. These efforts and the Task Force should be continued.
Question 3. In January 2003, I re-introduced the Coastal Zone Management reau-
thorization bill, S. 241. A hold was put on the bill, due to concerns related to the
oil and gas industry. Since oil and gas interests are tied to the Department of the
Interiors development of an energy policy, NOAA needs to work with Interior to re-
solve this impasse. Resolution of oil and gas concerns will allow the CZMA reauthor-
ization to proceed. What has NOAA done to resolve this impasse? Is NOAA talking
to the Department of the Interior regarding how their energy policy relates to oil
and gas in the coastal zone? What are NOAAs plans for developing proposed lan-
guage that can settle this controversy? What kind of time line is NOAA looking at
for this?
Answer. NOAA is aware of the oil and gas industrys concerns regarding the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). NOAA believes that industrys primary con-
cerns can be addressed through revised regulations. On July 2, 2002, NOAA issued
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public comment on
whether limited and specific procedural changes or guidance to the existing CZMA
federal consistency regulations are needed to improve efficiencies in the federal con-
sistency procedures and Secretarial appeals process, particularly for energy develop-
ment on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The ANPR was issued to respond to
concerns raised by industry and recommendations contained in Vice President Che-
neys Energy Policy Report, dated May 2001.
The comment period for the ANPR closed on October 3, 2002. NOAA considered
the comments and issued a proposed rule on June 11, 2003. The comment period
for the proposed rule closed on August 25, 2003. NOAA believes these proposed reg-
ulations will meet the needs of industry as well as the coastal States, and that this
process will help to resolve the CZMA reauthorization impasse related to OCS oil
and gas.
The Energy Report called on all federal agencies, not just the Department of the
Interior, to assess their programs and address the recommendations in the Energy
Report. Thus, the Energy report contains the Administrations energy policy, and
not multiple policies of the various federal agencies. NOAAs role in this process re-
sulted in the ANPR and a probable proposed rule related to CZMA requirements.
NOAA is closely coordinating with Interior on this issue. Secretary Evans and Sec-
retary Norton met to discuss this matter and agreed to a process to (1) establish
81
an effective NOAA-Interior partnership to address CZMA issues and (2) to develop
a proposed rule that addresses the Energy Report and NOAAs ANPR.
NOAA and Interior created a CZMA Work Group to work on these issues and this
Work Group provided its recommendations to a NOAA-Interior Policy Team. This
Team concluded that the regulatory changes contained in the proposed rule were
needed.
Question 4. I have some concerns about the expanded use of marine protected
areas. For example, Im concerned about the overlap with protected marine environ-
ments established in other laws, as well as NOAAs continued housing of this pro-
gram in the National Ocean Service, considering that many protected areas cur-
rently in place are administered by NOAA Fisheries. I am pleased to see, however,
that the Marine Protected Area Advisory Committee now has a more balanced rep-
resentation of affected stakeholders. How much administrative overlap will there be
between existing protected marine environments and any new MPAs?
Answer. The Executive Order directs relevant federal agencies to use their exist-
ing authority to take actions they deem appropriate in furtherance of their man-
dates to enhance or expand protections of existing MPAs and to recommend or es-
tablish new MPAs. These agencies will continue to follow their normal processes
under their existing authorities when expanding or establishing MPAs, including
any necessary public notice and comment and coordination with other federal, state,
tribal and local governments. Within NOAA, there continues to be close coordination
between NOS and NOAA Fisheries on MPA Executive Order implementation and
other marine conservation programs. The housing of the National MPA Center with-
in NOS is designed to provide efficient administrative and technical oversight and
support in the implementation of the Order. Analogous programs, such as the
NOAA Fisheries-housed NOAA Restoration Center and the NOAA Chesapeake Bay
Program, are located in specific line offices for similar reasons but benefit from the
participation and support of other relevant line offices.
One benefit of the Executive Order is that it provides for a National MPA Center
to be established in NOAA in cooperation with the Department of the Interior
(DOI), thereby allowing for better coordination across the varied MPA programs.
The MPA Needs Assessment completed in 2002 clearly indicated that there are
many shared science, training, and technical assistance needs among the variety of
MPAs. The National MPA Center has been addressing those shared needs through
the development of tools and sharing of information such as the ongoing lessons
learned project which seeks to provide insight on what worked and what did not
work on previous MPA establishment and improvement efforts. The information
about MPAs generated through the Order should help to shape the existing collec-
tion of federal, state, territorial, local, and tribal sites into a cohesive, independ-
ently-managed but mutually-supportive national network of MPAs. Ultimately, the
Order should help in reducing administrative overlap between existing protected
marine environments and any new MPAs by making complete, comparable informa-
tion available about federal and non-federal sites throughout the nation.
Question 4a. Like last year, NOAAs FY04 budget request includes $3 million for
MPAs and houses this program in the National Ocean Service. How well does NOS
interface with NOAA Fisheries, which already administers many existing MPAs?
Answer. The National MPA Center continues to consult closely with both NOAA
Fisheries and NOS in the implementation of the Executive Order. Both are rep-
resented on internal working groups established to address specific tasks from the
Order, as well as on most individual projects supported by the National MPA Cen-
ter. Senior managers from NOAA Fisheries and NOS meet on a routine basis to
monitor progress and resolve any issues necessary to maintain forward momentum
in implementing the Order. Joint NOAA Fisheries/NOS review of Congressional tes-
timony and preparatory materials, briefings for senior managers, and planning for
National MPA Center priorities have been adopted as standard operating practice.
NOAA Fisheries is a full member of the Department of Commerce (DOC)-Depart-
ment of the Interior (DOI) MPA Team, which meets monthly to coordinate activities
under the Executive Order. The National MPA Centers Science Institute, co-located
with the NOAA Fisheries Santa Cruz Laboratory, has increased collaboration with
NOAA Fisheries scientists and managers on the West Coast and nationally. Finally,
to ensure the ongoing flow of information, NOAA Fisheries staff attend routine staff
and planning meetings held by the National MPA Center. For example, four NOAA
Fisheries staff participated in the first MPA Center Planning retreat held in Janu-
ary 2003. In addition to collaboration through the National MPA Center, NOAA
Fisheries and NOS coordinate directly on specific programmatic issues that have
MPA implications, such as national marine sanctuary management plan reviews
and fishery management plan amendments.
82
Question 4b. How will NOAA improve the coordination between these groups?
Answer. Although coordination between the National MPA Center and NOAA
Fisheries on MPA issues has become routine, we continue to explore additional ave-
nues for improvement. Recently, an internal review was completed by external con-
sultants on the status of coordination between NOAAs MPA programs. Based on
the results of this study, NOAA held an internal workshop for the agencys MPA
program and technical support managers in May 2003 to explore the use of a matrix
management approach for enhancing coordination and cooperation among these pro-
grams across NOAA. Since most of NOAAs MPA activities are in NOS and NOAA
Fisheries, the Assistant Administrators for these line offices will be working with
the new Assistant Administrator for Program, Planning and Integration to develop
a plan that will increase efficient coordination and integration of NOAA MPA-re-
lated activities. We believe that the National MPA Centers ability to implement the
Executive Order will be enhanced as a result of these efforts.
Question 4c. As you know, MPAs can have many purposes, and they are often
misunderstood by the public. How will poor public perception affect NOAAs ability
to effectively use MPAs?
Answer. Poor public perception can have a significant effect on any of NOAAs
MPA programs, be they fisheries management areas, threatened/endangered critical
habitat and species protected areas, national marine sanctuaries, national estuarine
research reserves or other state-based MPA partnerships. Whether a program is
modifying an existing site or designating a new site, it is unlikely that such efforts
will succeed in improving the condition of the Nations coastal and marine resources
if the public does not fully understand and support what the program is trying to
accomplish.
Question 4d. How is NOAA working to improve public understanding of MPAs?
Answer. Outreach to the public is and will remain a high priority for NOAA.
NOAA, through the National MPA Center, is undertaking a broad range of activities
to improve public understanding of MPAs as a resource management tool. These ac-
tivities include:
Continued maintenance, a planned redesign, and routine revision and expan-
sion of the MPA web site, mpa.gov, to ensure it remains current with evolving
MPA information and needs;
Publication of a monthly electronic newsletter, Connections, in response to re-
quests for current information about the work of the MPA Center;
Providing access to the general public through the posting of Connections on
FirstGov.gov, the U.S. governments official web portal operated by the U.S.
General Services Administration;
Development of information materials about specific MPA projects and publica-
tions such as the users guide to MPA terms and definitions to be released short-
ly;
Establishment of MPA regional information centers in cooperation with regional
partners, beginning with PacificMPA.org, so that the public can have easy ac-
cess to information about what MPA activities are taking place in their region,
the purpose of the activity, when public meetings might take place, and who
to contact for additional information;
Support of the MPA Federal Advisory Committee, which held its first meeting
in late June 2003, including making information about the Committee readily
available to the public. The next meeting of the MPA FAC is scheduled for No-
vember 1719, 2003;
Working through the coastal states and territories and Fishery Management
Councils to improve the accessibility of information to their constituents;
Sponsoring regional educational workshops, such as those held in Maryland,
California, and Minnesota in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, to help marine edu-
cators inform the public concerning MPA issues;
Supporting public involvement in specific programmatic activities such as the
ongoing MPA process of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council;
Participation in stakeholder meetings such as annual meetings of the Fishery
Management Council Chairs and Executive Directors;
Participation in the meetings of professional organizations such as the National
Marine Educators Association and the National Association of Interpreters;
Participating in regional cooperative institutions such as the Gulf of Maine
Council;
83
Participation in stakeholder conferences such as the Native American Fish and
Wildlife Association annual conference and the California and the Worlds Ocean
conference; and
Participation in scientific MPA fora such as the upcoming Coastal Zone 03 con-
ference and the American Fisheries Society annual meeting.
Question 4e. What is the status of the MPA review as required by the Executive
Order?
Answer. Your letter of May 15, 2001, requesting our review of Executive Order
13158 on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), focused on three general concerns, in ad-
dition to questions concerning specific tasks, such as the MPA Federal Advisory
Committee and stakeholder involvement. You asked that we review:
whether the Executive Order conflicts with existing legislative and regulatory
frameworks and public processes;
whether the location of the National MPA Center in NOAAs Ocean Service
might not allow for adequate NOAA Fisheries participation; and
the potential effects of the executive order and how best to proceed with the De-
partments mission to protect marine resources.
We did not find that the Executive Order conflicts with existing legislative and
regulatory frameworks. The Bush Administrations decision to retain the Order
comes with the full understanding that the establishment and management of
MPAs in U.S. waters remains the responsibility of relevant federal, state, local, or
tribal agencies based on existing statutes and authorities. This decision also recog-
nizes that the Order does not interfere with, but rather supports, existing pro-
grammatic processes.
Upon review we believe that the Center is appropriately located administratively
within NOAAs Ocean Service (NOS), where it can support the multiple objectives
of MPAs, calling upon the expertise of the NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries), Na-
tional Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, and the Office of Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Research to accomplish this task, as well as working with
other federal agencies, states, territories, tribes and a broad spectrum of stake-
holders ranging from the commercial and recreational fishing industries, the dive
community, and the recreation and tourism industry to environmental and mineral
extraction organizations.
Question 4f. What conclusions are being reached about the existing and poten-
tially expanding use of MPAs?
Answer. Section 1 of the Executive Order states that the purpose of the Order is,
to (a) strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing marine
protected areas and establish new or expanded MPAs; [and] (b) develop a scientif-
ically based, comprehensive national system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. ma-
rine ecosystems, and the Nations natural and cultural resources. Any expansion,
such as the establishment of new Federal Fishery Management Zones or National
Estuarine Research Reserves, or revision to boundaries of National Marine Sanc-
tuaries, remains the responsibility of federal, state, tribal and local management
programs under their existing authorities, and using the best-available scientific in-
formation. NOAA is committed to the effective involvement of local stakeholders in
any decisions to strengthen existing MPAs or establish new MPAs that might be
made in the future under its existing authorities.
The first step in this process is the development of the Nations first inventory
of Marine Managed Areas. Collection of information about Federal sites has been
ongoing since late 2000. The FY 2003 appropriation has made available the re-
sources necessary to accelerate the progress being made by the states, territories
and tribes to add information about non-federal MPAs to the inventory and to begin
working with tribal authorities. We anticipate the first draft of a national inventory
to be available by the end of 2003, with information about individual states and
some regions potentially available sooner. This information will be used to examine
the effectiveness of the existing network of sites and identify possible overlaps or
gaps. We also will initiate the conceptual design of the multi-year, consultative proc-
ess needed to develop the framework for a national system of MPAs. The addition
of sites or modification of existing sites within or external to this system would con-
tinue to be the responsibility of existing management programs.
The Order potentially provides the broad national context within which such ex-
pansions might take place and be better understood in terms of comprehensive, effi-
cient, and effective stewardship. This will be accomplished in part through the de-
velopment of a framework for a national system, or network, of MPAs. Development
of this national network will be done in consultation, on a voluntary basis, with the
84
states, territories, tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and other enti-
ties, including the MPA Federal Advisory Committee.
Question 5. Recently a report was released that stated that the coral reefs in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are some of the most pristine in the world, while
the coral reefs in the Atlanticwhich includes Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbeanare some of the most in distress. Having said that, NOAAs Fiscal Year
2002 spending plan allocated 74 percent of the entire coral reef conservation pro-
gram to the Pacific and only 34 percent to the Atlantic. How will the 2003 spending
plan divide money between regions? What criteria will NOAA use to determine how
to allocate this money? If the level of distress among regions is so variable, shouldnt
we be spending more of our limited funding in the regions with the greatest needs?
Answer. A FY 2003 spending plan for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Pro-
gram was submitted to congressional appropriations committees for review and ap-
proval. Based on this plan, in FY 2003 approximately 64 percent ($17 million) of
total funding would support activities in the U.S. Pacific waters (e.g., Hawaii,
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Pacific Island Territories and Commonwealths), 34
percent ($9 million) would support activities in the U.S. Atlantic waters (e.g., Flor-
ida, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico), and < 2 percent ($0.5 million) would support
activities with international partners. This is roughly the same regional allocation
as in FY 2002. (Please note: The correct FY 2002 Pacific funding was 64 percent,
not 74 percent as indicated in the question.)
NOAA uses a variety of criteria to determine how to allocate coral reef program
funds among regions and activities. Criteria include not only the level of threat and
status of coral reefs in each area, but also the management and technical capacity
to address threats, existing federal and non-federal coral conservation work in the
region, direction from the Coral Reef Conservation Act, expert assessments of needs
and priorities (such as the U.S. National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, the
National Coral Reef Action Strategy, the 2002 Report on the State of U.S. Coral
Reef Ecosystems) and input from partners such as U.S. Coral Reef Task Force,
state, territory, and commonwealth agencies.
There are several reasons why more funding has been directed to U.S. Pacific re-
gions. First, when the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program was established in
2000, portions of the U.S. Atlantic and Caribbean were already ahead of the U.S.
Pacific in development of infrastructure and technical capacity for coral reef man-
agement. The allocation of funding to the Pacific reflected the need to proactively
build capacity and address the growing threats in this region. For example, one of
the Programs priorities has been to map and characterize all shallow coral reefs by
2009. By 2001, this work had been largely completed for U.S. reefs in the Atlantic,
and major investments were required to launch mapping efforts for the extensive
and often remote reef areas in the U.S. Pacific. This major undertaking required in-
creased funding for the Pacific mapping while mapping funds for the Atlantic de-
creased as the task was completed. Second, several Pacific efforts required major
funding beginning in FY 2001 for success, adding to the overall total funding for
the Pacific region. This includes $4 million for implementation of the Northwestern
Hawaiian Island (NWHI) Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (established in 2000 by
Presidential Executive Order) and designation of the Reserve as a National Marine
Sanctuary as authorized under the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act
of 2000. It also included annual funding of $3 million for major efforts to remove
tons of harmful marine debris from coral reefs of the NWHI, the primary human
impact on these otherwise pristine reefs. Third, Congress directed the NOAA Pro-
gram in the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the U.S. (Pub.L. 107206), to reallocate $2.5 million
of the program budget for deepwater mapping efforts in the NWHI. Together, these
commitments constitute a significant portion of the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Program budget.
Needs remain to reduce the threats to coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. Caribbean
and the Pacific. Serious efforts are also needed to help protect international coral
reefs. NOAA is working under the existing funding scenario to best prepare the Na-
tion to manage and conserve its coral reef resources. The distribution of funds by
region will track shifts in the resource allocation equation as capacity building
needs are met in the Pacific. NOAA will continue to use expert input from a wide
variety of sources, including the National Coral Reef Action Strategy, State of Coral
Reef Ecosystems of the United States and other documents, to report on the condi-
tions of coral reef ecosystems, to track the impacts of management efforts, and to
guide future spending. NOAA anticipates that the distribution of funding between
regions will become more unified over time as marine debris and coral reef mapping
efforts are completed.
85
Question 6. To date, NOAA has dedicated very little funding for studying the
socio-economics of coral reef damage and rehabilitationonly 1 percent of the over-
all budget in FY02 and zero percent in FY01. Considering that the causes of coral
reef decline are significantly driven by human activities, how can NOAA justify
spending so little on these aspects? What are NOAAs plans to integrate socio-eco-
nomics and human behavior into their overall Coral Reef Conservation Program,
both now and in the long term? How much of the coral reef budget will go toward
socio-economics in FY04?
Answer. Understanding and changing human behavior is essential to addressing
many threats to coral reefs. Balancing the sustainable use and protection of the re-
sources is dependent on this understanding and is critical to the long-term success
of management strategies. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States
and the National Coral Reef Action Strategy identified the need for more informa-
tion on societys present uses of, and associated socioeconomic impacts on, coral reef
ecosystems. Societys desired uses of coral reef ecosystems should direct future ex-
penditures of funds. The Action Strategy summarizes objectives and key actions
needed to help incorporate socioeconomic aspects of coral reef ecosystems into man-
agement activities. This is an area where significant effort is needed to better con-
serve and manage coral reef ecosystems, and the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Program has been doing what it can within other priorities and direction to help
fill this need.
NOAA supports a variety of social and economic research to fulfill its mission. The
Coral Reef Conservation Program (Program) is just one part of this effort has been
increasing funding in this area since 2001.
In FY 2002, the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program spent $35K on a variety
of projects to increase socioeconomic understanding of the use and value of coral reef
ecosystems (see full explanation below). Given the other priorities and mandates the
Program is required to meet in FY 2003, coupled with the $2 million reduction from
the Presidents request in the FY 2003 appropriation, funding for this area was not
increased as planned. The FY 2003 spending plan continues FY 2002 funding levels
for specific social and economic activities related to coral reefs. In FY 2004, NOAA
has proposed doubling the socioeconomic budget to 2 percent of the funding total.
NOAA believes there are critical additional needs to be addressed.
In FY 2002, the program supported a variety of social and economic projects re-
lated to coral reefs. This included a socioeconomic study of the commercial fisher-
men in the U.S. Virgin Islands, phase 1 of a National Coral Reef Valuation Study,
development and use of models to determine the economic value of coral reefs habi-
tats in response to ship groundings, and effort to incorporate socioeconomic layers
into Geographic Information System (GIS) management applications for use by local
and regional managers. These activities begin to help coral reef managers to better
target coral reef management activities. The Program also funds social and eco-
nomic projects in several other parts of the Program budget (e.g., management,
monitoring, partnerships etc.) as part of the effort to reduce threats from over-
fishing, land based pollution, recreational over-use and other threats. In addition,
a portion of the coral program funding is provided as grants to states, territories,
commonwealths and other partners to support coral reef management activities.
Some of these efforts address social and economic issues. In FY 2002 (and expected
in FY 2003), funding through the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program
and the Coral Reef Conservation Fund supported work on social and economic uses
and education to help reduce human impacts on reefs. Several other NOAA pro-
grams also work in this area and have supported projects on social and economic
aspects of coral reefs.
NOAA has developed comprehensive proposals to help assess the value of coral
reefs for use in damage assessment, restoration and management, and help imple-
ment education and outreach projects to reduce human impacts on reef systems. As
in FY 2002, these proposed activities are designed to address top priorities identified
by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and NOAAs state, territory and commonwealth
partners. If the FY 2004 funding request is appropriated and the coral reef program
spend plan is approved, NOAA will increase support for these activities and begin
to implement much needed additional projects in these important areas.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO

Question 1. Emergency Warning Act: As you know, this Congress Senator Ed-
wards and I introduced S. 118, The Emergency Warning Act. This legislation would
require the Department of Commerce to work with other relevant agencies, includ-
86
ing the Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that comprehensive, easily
understood emergency warnings get to every American at risk, whether from flood,
hurricane or terrorist attack. The bill would utilize the NOAA Weather Radio as the
backbone of the system. I am therefore pleased to see your proposal in the FY 2004
budget to upgrade NOAA weather radio to send out civil emergency messages. What
would be required to further upgrade the NOAA Weather Radio infrastructure to
make it a true all hazards warning system for the nation?
Answer. NOAAs National Weather Service (NWS) requires two key investments
to make the NOAA Weather Radio Network a true all hazards warning system for
the nation. First, as part of the Department of Commerces Homeland Security Ini-
tiative, the FY04 Presidents Budget includes a one time request of $5.5M to auto-
mate the collection and dissemination of civil emergency messages over NOAA
Weather Radio (NWR). Today, the NWS broadcasts weather and non-weather civil
emergency messages over NWR for events such as earthquakes, chemical spill, nu-
clear releases, biohazards, and fire emergencies. However, the current process re-
quires first responders and emergency managers to call the local Weather Forecast
Office and request an NWS employee to type and transmit the emergency message.
This process is labor intensive and introduces unnecessary delays for transmitting
messages. The request in the FY04 Presidents Budget will provide emergencies
managers with direct automated secure access to the NWR network to improve the
timeliness of the messages. We estimate this new direct access capability to de-
crease the message transmission time from current average of 7 minutes down to
just 2 minutes.
Second, we need to provide adequate NWR coverage to the U.S. population. Cur-
rently, the National Weather Service operates over 800 NWR radio transmitters,
providing coverage to approximately 90 percent of the U.S. population. However, the
coverage in some States is as low as 70 percent and some 25 high risk areas still
lack coverage. Under the current federal partnership agreement, local and state gov-
ernments as well as private associations purchase the transmitters and, in turn, the
NWS operates and maintains the network. To ensure the NWR network fully sup-
ports Homeland Security, we need to continue working with our partners and Con-
gress to ensure transmitters are installed at the remaining high risk sites and pro-
vide adequate coverage to the population to mitigate the impact of civil emergencies.
Question 1a. What agencies need to be involved?
Answer. Currently, NOAAs National Weather Service is working with the De-
partment of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Agriculture, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate planning and implementa-
tion for the two investments outlined above. For example, the Department of Agri-
culture has administered a successful grant process for rural communities to receive
NWR transmitters. In addition, NWS has been working with the Chief Information
Officers (CIO) in both FEMA and DHS to coordinate implementation for the new
automated messaging capability for NWR.
Question 1b. Are discussions ongoing in the Administration?
Answer. Yes, DHS has been charged with developing and coordinating a National
emergency communication system. Officials from NOAA and NWS and DHS met
earlier this year to coordination planning and implementation for using NWR as a
component of this emergency system. Tom Ridge, Secretary for the DHS, recently
acknowledged NWR as a critical component of the future National emergency alert
infrastructure.
Question 1c. Who is leading these discussions?
Answer. Senior Officials from NOAA and NOAAs National Weather Service have
been leading the discussions, including NOAA and NWSs Chief Information Officers
(CIO) as well as the NWS Director of Operational Systems and the Director of Serv-
ices. These officials have been working with the Office of the CIO within DHS.
Question 1d. What is the expected outcome?
Answer. We expect to develop a long term relationship between NOAA and DHS
to leverage NOAAs expertise and warning infrastructure to support efforts to trans-
mit timely and accurate emergency messages to the public. We expect the NWR net-
work will continue to be a critical component for these efforts. NWS will also con-
tinue to work with DHS and FEMA to formalize these relationships.
Recapitalization of NOAA FleetNOAA requires ship operations to support di-
verse activities, including mapping and charting, fishery stock assessments, climate
and global change research, ocean exploration, and marine incident investigations.
The NOAA fleet now consists of 16 vessels, many of which are aging or approaching
the end of their useful lives, but NOAAs research and survey missions are expand-
ing annually.
87
Question 2. Whats the strategy and schedule of plans to increase the number of
fishery survey research vessels? When is the next one due?
Answer.
The Fisheries Survey Vessel Authorization Act of 2000 authorizes the purchase,
lease, lease-purchase or charter of up to six fishery survey vessels (FSVs) for
NOAA.
Congress appropriated money for the first fishery survey vessel in FY 2000 and
FY 2001. NOAA awarded a contract for construction of the first fishery survey
vessel with contract options for 3 additional vessels in January 2001. The con-
tract shipyard, Halter Marine, had some financial difficulties which have been
resolved and the company emerged from the bankruptcy as VT Halter Marine.
The launching of the first fishery survey vessel, to be named the OSCAR
DYSON and homeported in Kodiak, Alaska, is presently scheduled for this fall.
Delivery of the DYSON is expected in late FY 2004.
Congress appropriated money in FY 2002 and FY 2003 for the second fishery
survey vessel, a replacement for the ALBATROSS IV, which is to be
homeported in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. NOAA exercised its option under
the existing FSV contract and awarded funds to VT Halter Marine to begin con-
struction on FSV 2 in July 2003. This vessel will be ready for operations in Fall
2006.
Due in part to uncertainty about the financial status of the shipyard during the
formulation of the FY 2004 budget and to allow adequate progress on FSV 1
and 2, the FY 2004 Presidents Budget does not include a request for funds for
the third fishery survey vessel.
NOAA has until January 31, 2005 to exercise the option to build the third ves-
sel under its existing contract with VT Halter Marine.
Question 3. Do you plan to add any other vessels to replace or supplement the
existing fleet?
Answer. NOAAs plan is to continue current modernization projects including, (1)
building new fisheries survey vessels; (2) reactivating FAIRWEATHER for nautical
charting in Alaska in FY 2004; (3) decommissioning the WHITING on May 2, 2003
and replacing it with the LITTLEHALES, a former Navy TAGS vessel; (4) replacing
the McARTHUR with a converted Navy T-AGOS vessel (to be renamed the
McARTHUR II) in May 2003; (5) replacing the RUDE with a Shallow Water Area
Twin Hull (SWATH) vessel in FY 2006; and (6) using a converted T-AGOS vessel
to conduct coral reef work in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.
Question 4. What are your long range plans for recapitalizing the NOAA fleet?
Have you developed an updated NOAA Fleet Modernization Plan?
Answer. NOAA has drafted a 10 year Vessel Plan and a 10 year Aircraft Plan
which examine existing and future requirements for platform needs. The plans com-
pare current capacity within the vessel and aircraft fleet against future require-
ments and other factors, such as the age of platforms. The plans recommend strate-
gies for meeting these requirements. Both the vessel and aircraft draft plans are
currently under review.
Question 4a. Have you estimated the cost?
Answer. Estimated costs for implementing the 10 year Vessel and Aircraft Plans
will be provided to Congress when the plans are cleared by the Department of Com-
merce and the Office of Management and Budget.
Question 5. What are your plans for upgrading equipment and instrumentation
on these vesselssuch as multibeam sonar, which is needed for hydrographic sur-
veys, coral mapping, ocean exploration, fisheries habitat designations, and a variety
of other uses?
Answer. With the $6.2M appropriated in FY 2003 for vessel instrumentation,
NOAA will purchase multibeam systems and related technology to upgrade the ca-
pabilities of the RON BROWN, FAIRWEATHER, LITTLEHALES, RUDE and
RAINIER. In addition, part of the money will purchase an Autonomous Underwater
Vehicle (AUV) that will initially be used by the NOAA/University of New Hamp-
shire Joint Hydrographic Center for testing and evaluation.
Each year, NOAA uses funds from its Fleet Maintenance and Planning account
to purchase equipment and instrumentation upgrades for NOAA vessels, including
computer networks and data processing systems, fishery sonar, oceanographic sen-
sors, navigation and communications systems, and saltwater sampling equipment.
88
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO
Question 1. EPA/NOAA Coastal Health Report and Status of MonitoringThe
2001 EPA/NOAA National Coastal Condition Report represented the existing knowl-
edge on the condition of the Nations coastal waters, and further identifies some im-
portant and significant regional differences. No overall assessments were completed
for Alaska, Hawaii, or the island territories. How would the FY 2004 NOAA budget
proposal help to fill these coastal monitoring and observing gaps? Do other agency
requests fill any of these gaps?
Answer. The FY 2004 NOAA budget proposal contains $2M for the National Data
Buoy Center to upgrade/expand the NOAA marine buoy system. This system, and
the associated CMAN stations, collect meteorological and oceanographic informa-
tion and constitute a major component of the national backbone of federal assets
that contribute to a national coastal observing system.
The FY 2004 NOAA budget proposal also contains a $1.5M increase to upgrade
and strengthen the National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON), another
major component of the national backbone. The 175 station NWLON (which in-
cludes stations in AK, HI, Guam, VI, PR, Midway and the Marshall Islands) collects
tide and Great Lakes water level data as well as associated meteorological and
oceanographic information. The NWLON has been well integrated with a number
of local observing systems such as the Texas Coastal Ocean Observation Network
(TCOON) and the NOAA cost shared Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System
(PORTS) partnership program.
Question 1a. When will this report be updated so that we may track trends?
Answer. The next National Coastal Condition Report is being developed now and
will be released in 2004. It will include more information for Hawaii and island ter-
ritories, particularly in the context of the condition of coral reefs. Representing Alas-
ka remains difficult because it has more coastal area than the rest of the United
States combined. Nonetheless the next report will use data from recent expansion
of EPA monitoring to the West Coast and will include contributions from state agen-
cies. The next Coastal Condition Report is being written with reference to its prede-
cessor with a specific intent of tracking changes.
Question 1b. Could such a regional monitoring system be fitted within the Na-
tional ocean observing system under discussion?
Answer. What is required is a coordinated, integrated coastal monitoring frame-
work by which appropriate data may be collected locally, but in such a manner that
the information may be aggregated to provide regional and national assessments of
coastal condition. This approach was outlined in the Clean Water Action Plan:
Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy as well as other documents. These docu-
ments help define the requirements for an Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS) that will build on and integrate existing monitoring programs as determined
by those who use environmental data for purposes of regulation and management.
Most resource management and regulatory agencies (state and federal) and other
interested parties (e.g., industry, NGOs) are interested in similar information, but
the collection and dissemination of that information is typically not well coordinated
and integrated. The coastal component of the Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS) provides a framework for this integration.
Many of the indicators of coastal condition used in the National Coastal Condition
Report are of the type that require sample collection and subsequent laboratory
analysis and, at this time, are not amenable to continuous and remote sensing ei-
ther by satellite or with in-situ instruments. Technological developments in sensors,
however, are increasing the opportunities for more continuous sampling of coastal
condition indicators. For example, satellite sensing of chlorophyll and in-situ moni-
toring of water quality are becoming reliable. Thus, an integrated monitoring pro-
gram will need to consist of both sample collection and analysis as well as more
automated approaches to monitoring coastal conditions. Both should be considered
as methods to gather information on coastal condition.
The coastal component of the IOOS envisions and is working towards the integra-
tion of data provided through traditional monitoring programs with data provided
through operational assets at the national, regional and local scales. These coastal
monitoring programs will contribute to the more comprehensive assessment of coast-
al resources made possible by nationally integrated, operational observing systems.
The Interagency Working Group for the National Ocean Partnership Program is dis-
cussing mechanisms to achieve this integration.
NOAA views the regional observing systems as providing an important component
of a national coastal and ocean observing system. The national (and international)
oceanographic communities recognize this, and further acknowledge that if we are
89
to be successful in this effort, that an effective data communications and manage-
ment (DMAC) infrastructure must be put in place. NOAA is now leading the na-
tional IOOS DMAC Committee that is developing a viable implementation plan that
will enable regional observing systems to become a part of the national infrastruc-
ture (backbone). Dealing with data exchange standards, protocols and system-to-sys-
tem interoperability challenges that have to date hindered a national integration,
this DMAC report and its recommendations will be completed this fiscal year.
Question 1c. How many regional observing systems are already in existence or in
planning states, and how will NOAA (or partner federal agencies) ensure coordina-
tion of such systems while allowing regional flexibility?
Answer. There are presently a variety of ocean observing capabilities distributed
around the Nations coasts. The Ocean.US Office recently estimated that there are
44 non-affiliated ocean observing systems in existence, highlighting the present op-
portunity to enhance the benefits of these systems through greater coordination and
integration. Some of these capabilities, such as NOAAs National Water Level Ob-
servation Network and suite of marine buoys, are operated by federal agencies, and
as noted in our response to Question 1, have established some models for coordina-
tion at the local or state level where there are common interests. Other capabilities
or assets are operated at the sub-regional or local level by universities, states, or
non-profit organizations. Examples of these are many and include the congression-
ally-directed Coastal Observation Technology System partners. Most states have ex-
tant monitoring programs, collecting a variety of information about coastal condi-
tions. Collaboration among various assets within certain geographies occurs at vary-
ing levels to provide enhanced information, however, until recently integration of
these assets at the regional level has been rare. The most obvious model to date
of a regional ocean observing system has been the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing
System (GOMOOS). The EPA Coastal Assessment Program is a notable example of
federal-state cooperation in monitoring of selected indicators to provide an assess-
ment of condition at the regional level.
Recently (31 March1 April 2003) Ocean.US sponsored a Regional Summit to
address the very question of regional organization of coastal observing systems and
the relationships among the regional systems and federal observing assets. The
foundation for this discussion is the draft implementation plan developed by the
Ocean.US office and titled Implementation of the Initial U.S. Integrated Ocean Ob-
serving System, Part 1, Purpose and Governance (see www.ocean.us). Participants at
this meeting agreed to a basic framework of cooperation and contributed ideas to
implementation of governance structure for a national system. The interagency Na-
tional Ocean Research Leadership Council has also endorsed the basic framework
proposed by Ocean.US.
It is also important to note that the Ocean Commission is expected to provide rec-
ommendations regarding regional approaches by federal agencies, including better
approaches to integrate federal assets with those of states and universities at the
regional level.
Question 1d. What would you recommend Congress do to ensure we establish the
coordinated monitoring program necessary to collect and analyze data in subsequent
years, establish trends, and to feed those results back into management decisions?
Answer. Congress should endorse the concept of a national coastal monitoring pro-
gram that establishes a national framework and integrates appropriate extant moni-
toring/observing programs. Documents such as the Clean Water Action Plan and
others have made this recommendation in the past. An interagency body, such as
the NORLC, is likely the appropriate forum for implementation. It will be necessary
to include the interests of the states and other stakeholders in such discussions.
Question 1e. What would it cost?
Answer. The $500M estimate represents new investments government-wide for es-
tablishing an integrated system. This cost takes into account government-wide exist-
ing assets, which form the underpinning for the system. For NOAA, some of the as-
sets include coastal data buoys, the National Water Level Observation Network, and
the network of Argo profiling floats. Consideration is also given to assets of other
countries, since there is a policy of full and open exchange of data among the many
countries participating in the nascent Global Ocean Observing System. The U.S. in-
tegrated system is a component of the Global Ocean Observing System. NOAA is
conducting a comprehensive inventory of its observing architecture. Anticipated
costs for the Integrated Ocean Observing System will be refined once this inventory
is finalized.
Question 2. Climate Change Science and FundingIn a recent National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) evaluation of NOAAs Strategic Plan for the Climate Change
Science Program, the panel raised serious concerns that the research plan lacked
90
focus or clear objectives and that the FY 2004 budget did not provide any real in-
creases for climate change researchand none for completing the assessments re-
quired by law. Yet the plan states that it is intended to provide tools that decision-
makers may use to decide how to respond to climate changejust what these as-
sessments were intended by Congress to provide in the Global Change Research Act
of 1990. When do you intend to complete the assessments required under section
106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990?
Answer. A schedule, including dates of completion, of the updated synthesis and
assessment was published as part of the final version of the Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) Strategic Plan on July 24, 2003.
Question 2a. What areas and issues will they cover?
Answer. The Administrations strategic plan brings together the resources and ex-
pertise of 13 federal agencies, to develop improved knowledge of climate variability
and change, and improved decision-making tools for policymakers. It is also ex-
pected to lead to development of cutting-edge environmental technologies that will
help sustain a healthy economy and protect the environment.
Question 2b. What types of tools for decision-makers are you planning to provide
in 2004?
Answer. Decision support resources that the CCSP anticipates providing in FY
2004 include:
New climate simulations based on forcing scenarios that have already been
specified, such as CO2 stabilization scenarios and some emission scenarios re-
quested for the IPCC fourth assessment.
Evaluations of contributions from changes in natural and human forcing (e.g.,
greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, and land use)
to the climate variability of the past 300400 years. These will provide an en-
hanced understanding of the mechanisms for the warmth of the 20th century
compared to earlier centuries, and provide a more complete context for ana-
lyzing and interpreting projections of future climate change resulting from
human activities.
Development of a minimum of four emissions scenarios to provide alternatives
to the SRES scenarios that were published by the IPCC for use in the Energy
Modeling Forum (EMF) by members of the integrated assessment modeling
community.
Development of scenarios that include shorter-lived radiatively-important spe-
cies (e.g., tropospheric ozone and aerosols), which are the only way to alter
near-term radiative forcing and offer win-win possibilities because they relate
to other issues, such as air quality.
Development and testing of internet-based systems that transportation entities
can use to calculate voluntary GHG reductions and register them.
Consumer-based demand reduction and mode selection model and studies that
will aid in developing consumption reduction strategies to support transpor-
tation planners.
Risk assessment of potential impact of aviation particulate emissions on climate
change.
Preliminary data describing how land management practices in different envi-
ronments, including soil types and vegetation cover types, alter carbon seques-
tration throughout the high proportion of U.S. land that is under agricultural
management.
Report on results to incorporate information about regional historic climate var-
iability, seasonal teleconnections, and socioeconomic trends in the Southwestern
United States into existing operational decision frameworks to reduce ground
water overdrafts.
Hydrology model(s) that incorporate climatic information, alternative water
sources, municipal and agricultural demands, and institutional constraints to
identify the impact of alternative water policies on water availability, quality,
and price.
Transfer the first generation of climate-based stochastic reservoir management
methodologies to reservoir managers to improve hydropower management and
species and habitat protection.
Establishment of centers that will work with decision makers, stakeholders, and
others to disseminate research results through trade journals and other media
that make their findings more readily available.
91
Grazing and feed management practices for field testing that reduce methane
missions from cattle and other ruminants.
Assessment of the mechanisms underlying responses and factors that can be
managed to sustain food production and enhance marketability under changing
carbon dioxide concentrations.
Improved estimates of greenhouse gas fluxes from agriculture and conservation
activities.
A web system for producing on-demand normals or climate means for specific
time periods and spatial scales, accounting for changes and variations in cli-
mate.
A comprehensive set of information related to changes in the surface
hydrological cycle during the past 100 years, a key aspect of regional and sec-
toral assessments.
Question 2c. Will these tools focus on both mitigation and adaptation decision-
making?
Answer. Some of the resources listed above focus on mitigation and adaptation de-
cision making.
Question 2d. Which decisionmakers are the intended audience? Please be spe-
cific.
Answer. A core component of the CCSP is its emphasis on decision support re-
sources to provide information to support national policy and regional/sectoral re-
source management. Depending on the information provided, the intended audience
includes: the general public, interested stakeholder groups, resource managers, and
Members of Congress.

Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Coast Guard and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Requests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Coast Guard and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Requests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

COAST GUARD AND NATIONAL OCEANIC

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND

MARCH 12, 2003

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

not have to tell you that NOAA is a broad-ranging agency on which

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

However, I want the record to show that since Hawaii is an insu-

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator SNOWE. I thank you, Senator Inouye, for your statement.

I began my testimony by saying that operational excellence is

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Admiral Collins.

STATEMENT OF CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., VICE

ager in any county in the country, or any area, would be able to

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Admiral Lautenbacher.

to our November 2002 recommendations of what this blueprint

Table 1: Security and Nonsecurity Missions of the Coast Guard

Ports, waterways, and Conducting harbor patrols, vulnerability assessments, intelligence

during the summer months when boating is at its peak.

Performance measurement data further demonstrates the relatively minimal im-

Maritime Search and Rescue/Personnel Safety

Total Fiscal Year 2004 new initiatives $168.5

Integrated Deepwater System $500.0

15 Pub.L. 107295, Nov. 25, 2002.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Ms. Hecker.

Your testimony raises some serious concerns in terms of the abil-

Admiral COLLINS. It is not going to be equal, Madam Chair. I

One other comment. We should talk about performance as well

So, yes, they can be a target of a certain level. The tradeoff of

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Stevens.

at the minimum. It is not even at the minimum that was projected.

grant money out. I have ayou know, we have a management re-

Senator SNOWE. Right.

eting process with outcomes, measurements of success, and per-

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. We have had a plan. There are actually

One of the complicating factors is the cost per study is higher

tional equipment. And as per our hearing of several weeks ago,

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

PSA COMPLETION SCHEDULE

(6) Boston, MA 4 Aug20 Aug 02 21 Aug7 Sep 02 13 Jan 03

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

FY 10-Year ($M) FY04 CIP ($M)

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN B. BREAUX TO

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO

You might also like